x

Deeticky

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:3/29/2010
Last Login:8/26/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#11038
Highest Content Rank:#4157
Highest Comment Rank:#416
Content Thumbs: 2400 total,  2750 ,  350
Comment Thumbs: 8833 total,  9976 ,  1143
Content Level Progress: 96% (96/100)
Level 123 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 124 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 10% (10/100)
Level 286 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 287 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Subscribers:0
Content Views:110180
Times Content Favorited:163 times
Total Comments Made:2495
FJ Points:941
Favorite Tags: lol (8) | troll (5) | chan (3) | Four (3) | anonymous (2) | black (2) | Christianity (2) | comic (2) | forever (2) | murder (2)

latest user's comments

#139 - Notice how I said I was against hate-speech codes. I am agains…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/27/2015 on -_-' 0
User avatar #140 - youregaylol (07/27/2015) [-]
I've seen too many liberal pundits justify racial violence by saying that the offenders were provoked by the victims (muh institutionalized racism, muh confederate flag, muh police brutality) to trust that liberals care about speech or violence anymore.

The democratic party is filled with radical progressives who drive the agenda, my father was a democrat for many years until he realized that they were chastising Christians for refusing to serve gay weddings, justifying race riots and inflaming racial violence, making terrorists look like freedom fighters or sympathetic, dickriding muslims while blasting anything christian, refusing to defend the border with mexico and calling anyone who wanted to a racist, demonisizing the american police force while idolizing thugs, supporting gay pride parades that have half naked men running around in public making out, forcing people to give money to planned parenthood, the bullshit list goes on and on and on.

It's not the working mans party anymore, its just bullshit progressive dogma over and over again.
User avatar #141 - Deeticky (07/28/2015) [-]
You're from Texas, right? Perhaps the Democratic party in Texas is far different from the party here in Minnesota? I have seen people become upset at businesses who refuse to serve gays, but it had nothing to do with the fact that they were Christians. These people would be just as upset if it were a Muslim business refusing to serve gays, etc. I also have not seen any liberals call terrorists freedom fighters. I'm sure that there are probably liberal bloggers online who do that. It's no different from conservative bloggers who support the KKK. There are extremists on both sides.

While I have seen a lot of people complaining about police brutality (Which I would say is a justified complaint at this point in time), I have never seen a single person "idolize thugs." I'm not even 100% sure what that means.

Also, I think it's unfair to pretend that liberal pundits speak for all liberals. The media always takes things to the extreme because rage always generates revenue. The right has just as many pundits of its own (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc).

Overall, I feel like you seem to be lumping liberals into one big stereotype. The reason I don't like that is because it hurts our ability to work together and get things done. We need to be able to have an open and honest dialogue. I get equally frustrated whenever I hear people make stereotypes about conservatives (they're racists, bigots, greedy, etc). I believe that most conservatives, just like most liberals, love this country and just want the best for it.
#137 - Those are not laws. Even the Wikipedia page states that these …  [+] (4 new replies) 07/27/2015 on -_-' 0
User avatar #138 - youregaylol (07/27/2015) [-]
They're in public universities using public funds in public places and you can be removed by force for saying things in public.

Nothing anti-free speech at all.
User avatar #139 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
Notice how I said I was against hate-speech codes. I am against them for the very same reason that you are, because they are taking place at public universities using public funds. I think they'll end up at the Supreme Court some day. It will be an interesting case to watch. At the same time, it is important to remember that universities are allowed to set their own codes of conduct (within limits as dictated by the courts). Again, these are codes, not laws. It is very important to differentiate between the two.

I attend one of the more Liberal Universities in the country (University of Minnesota, Twin-Cities). I am a liberal. I have a lot of liberal friends and classmates. I am an active volunteer in the DFL (Minnesota's version of the Democratic party). I have definitely met a few people who want to see hate speech laws expanded, but they are definitely in the minority. The majority of us do support laws that make it illegal to threaten people with violence. That has been the law of the land for a long time though.

All I'm trying to show is that most liberals, just like most conservatives, love and value the First Amendment.
User avatar #140 - youregaylol (07/27/2015) [-]
I've seen too many liberal pundits justify racial violence by saying that the offenders were provoked by the victims (muh institutionalized racism, muh confederate flag, muh police brutality) to trust that liberals care about speech or violence anymore.

The democratic party is filled with radical progressives who drive the agenda, my father was a democrat for many years until he realized that they were chastising Christians for refusing to serve gay weddings, justifying race riots and inflaming racial violence, making terrorists look like freedom fighters or sympathetic, dickriding muslims while blasting anything christian, refusing to defend the border with mexico and calling anyone who wanted to a racist, demonisizing the american police force while idolizing thugs, supporting gay pride parades that have half naked men running around in public making out, forcing people to give money to planned parenthood, the bullshit list goes on and on and on.

It's not the working mans party anymore, its just bullshit progressive dogma over and over again.
User avatar #141 - Deeticky (07/28/2015) [-]
You're from Texas, right? Perhaps the Democratic party in Texas is far different from the party here in Minnesota? I have seen people become upset at businesses who refuse to serve gays, but it had nothing to do with the fact that they were Christians. These people would be just as upset if it were a Muslim business refusing to serve gays, etc. I also have not seen any liberals call terrorists freedom fighters. I'm sure that there are probably liberal bloggers online who do that. It's no different from conservative bloggers who support the KKK. There are extremists on both sides.

While I have seen a lot of people complaining about police brutality (Which I would say is a justified complaint at this point in time), I have never seen a single person "idolize thugs." I'm not even 100% sure what that means.

Also, I think it's unfair to pretend that liberal pundits speak for all liberals. The media always takes things to the extreme because rage always generates revenue. The right has just as many pundits of its own (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc).

Overall, I feel like you seem to be lumping liberals into one big stereotype. The reason I don't like that is because it hurts our ability to work together and get things done. We need to be able to have an open and honest dialogue. I get equally frustrated whenever I hear people make stereotypes about conservatives (they're racists, bigots, greedy, etc). I believe that most conservatives, just like most liberals, love this country and just want the best for it.
#135 - What laws are you referring to? There are laws against hate sp…  [+] (6 new replies) 07/27/2015 on -_-' 0
User avatar #137 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
Those are not laws. Even the Wikipedia page states that these codes are being implemented in the workplace, Universities, and private institutions. These codes are not being implemented by the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial branches (Which are all bound by the Constitution). They are being implemented by the governing bodies of Universities and private institutions, which are not bound by the same constitutional limits as the government is.

Long story short, hate speech codes are not the same as hate speech laws. I say this as a liberal who is generally against hate speech codes.
User avatar #138 - youregaylol (07/27/2015) [-]
They're in public universities using public funds in public places and you can be removed by force for saying things in public.

Nothing anti-free speech at all.
User avatar #139 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
Notice how I said I was against hate-speech codes. I am against them for the very same reason that you are, because they are taking place at public universities using public funds. I think they'll end up at the Supreme Court some day. It will be an interesting case to watch. At the same time, it is important to remember that universities are allowed to set their own codes of conduct (within limits as dictated by the courts). Again, these are codes, not laws. It is very important to differentiate between the two.

I attend one of the more Liberal Universities in the country (University of Minnesota, Twin-Cities). I am a liberal. I have a lot of liberal friends and classmates. I am an active volunteer in the DFL (Minnesota's version of the Democratic party). I have definitely met a few people who want to see hate speech laws expanded, but they are definitely in the minority. The majority of us do support laws that make it illegal to threaten people with violence. That has been the law of the land for a long time though.

All I'm trying to show is that most liberals, just like most conservatives, love and value the First Amendment.
User avatar #140 - youregaylol (07/27/2015) [-]
I've seen too many liberal pundits justify racial violence by saying that the offenders were provoked by the victims (muh institutionalized racism, muh confederate flag, muh police brutality) to trust that liberals care about speech or violence anymore.

The democratic party is filled with radical progressives who drive the agenda, my father was a democrat for many years until he realized that they were chastising Christians for refusing to serve gay weddings, justifying race riots and inflaming racial violence, making terrorists look like freedom fighters or sympathetic, dickriding muslims while blasting anything christian, refusing to defend the border with mexico and calling anyone who wanted to a racist, demonisizing the american police force while idolizing thugs, supporting gay pride parades that have half naked men running around in public making out, forcing people to give money to planned parenthood, the bullshit list goes on and on and on.

It's not the working mans party anymore, its just bullshit progressive dogma over and over again.
User avatar #141 - Deeticky (07/28/2015) [-]
You're from Texas, right? Perhaps the Democratic party in Texas is far different from the party here in Minnesota? I have seen people become upset at businesses who refuse to serve gays, but it had nothing to do with the fact that they were Christians. These people would be just as upset if it were a Muslim business refusing to serve gays, etc. I also have not seen any liberals call terrorists freedom fighters. I'm sure that there are probably liberal bloggers online who do that. It's no different from conservative bloggers who support the KKK. There are extremists on both sides.

While I have seen a lot of people complaining about police brutality (Which I would say is a justified complaint at this point in time), I have never seen a single person "idolize thugs." I'm not even 100% sure what that means.

Also, I think it's unfair to pretend that liberal pundits speak for all liberals. The media always takes things to the extreme because rage always generates revenue. The right has just as many pundits of its own (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc).

Overall, I feel like you seem to be lumping liberals into one big stereotype. The reason I don't like that is because it hurts our ability to work together and get things done. We need to be able to have an open and honest dialogue. I get equally frustrated whenever I hear people make stereotypes about conservatives (they're racists, bigots, greedy, etc). I believe that most conservatives, just like most liberals, love this country and just want the best for it.
#133 - I think the important thing to note is that they are not flyin…  [+] (8 new replies) 07/27/2015 on -_-' 0
User avatar #134 - youregaylol (07/27/2015) [-]
"Liberals care about the First Amendment just as much as everybody else. "

Explain hate speech laws.
User avatar #135 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
What laws are you referring to? There are laws against hate speech in Europe, but most American Liberals I know are vehemently against many of them.

Threats of violence are illegal. But those are not protected under Free Speech anyway. The Supreme Court ruled on that long ago.
User avatar #137 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
Those are not laws. Even the Wikipedia page states that these codes are being implemented in the workplace, Universities, and private institutions. These codes are not being implemented by the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial branches (Which are all bound by the Constitution). They are being implemented by the governing bodies of Universities and private institutions, which are not bound by the same constitutional limits as the government is.

Long story short, hate speech codes are not the same as hate speech laws. I say this as a liberal who is generally against hate speech codes.
User avatar #138 - youregaylol (07/27/2015) [-]
They're in public universities using public funds in public places and you can be removed by force for saying things in public.

Nothing anti-free speech at all.
User avatar #139 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
Notice how I said I was against hate-speech codes. I am against them for the very same reason that you are, because they are taking place at public universities using public funds. I think they'll end up at the Supreme Court some day. It will be an interesting case to watch. At the same time, it is important to remember that universities are allowed to set their own codes of conduct (within limits as dictated by the courts). Again, these are codes, not laws. It is very important to differentiate between the two.

I attend one of the more Liberal Universities in the country (University of Minnesota, Twin-Cities). I am a liberal. I have a lot of liberal friends and classmates. I am an active volunteer in the DFL (Minnesota's version of the Democratic party). I have definitely met a few people who want to see hate speech laws expanded, but they are definitely in the minority. The majority of us do support laws that make it illegal to threaten people with violence. That has been the law of the land for a long time though.

All I'm trying to show is that most liberals, just like most conservatives, love and value the First Amendment.
User avatar #140 - youregaylol (07/27/2015) [-]
I've seen too many liberal pundits justify racial violence by saying that the offenders were provoked by the victims (muh institutionalized racism, muh confederate flag, muh police brutality) to trust that liberals care about speech or violence anymore.

The democratic party is filled with radical progressives who drive the agenda, my father was a democrat for many years until he realized that they were chastising Christians for refusing to serve gay weddings, justifying race riots and inflaming racial violence, making terrorists look like freedom fighters or sympathetic, dickriding muslims while blasting anything christian, refusing to defend the border with mexico and calling anyone who wanted to a racist, demonisizing the american police force while idolizing thugs, supporting gay pride parades that have half naked men running around in public making out, forcing people to give money to planned parenthood, the bullshit list goes on and on and on.

It's not the working mans party anymore, its just bullshit progressive dogma over and over again.
User avatar #141 - Deeticky (07/28/2015) [-]
You're from Texas, right? Perhaps the Democratic party in Texas is far different from the party here in Minnesota? I have seen people become upset at businesses who refuse to serve gays, but it had nothing to do with the fact that they were Christians. These people would be just as upset if it were a Muslim business refusing to serve gays, etc. I also have not seen any liberals call terrorists freedom fighters. I'm sure that there are probably liberal bloggers online who do that. It's no different from conservative bloggers who support the KKK. There are extremists on both sides.

While I have seen a lot of people complaining about police brutality (Which I would say is a justified complaint at this point in time), I have never seen a single person "idolize thugs." I'm not even 100% sure what that means.

Also, I think it's unfair to pretend that liberal pundits speak for all liberals. The media always takes things to the extreme because rage always generates revenue. The right has just as many pundits of its own (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc).

Overall, I feel like you seem to be lumping liberals into one big stereotype. The reason I don't like that is because it hurts our ability to work together and get things done. We need to be able to have an open and honest dialogue. I get equally frustrated whenever I hear people make stereotypes about conservatives (they're racists, bigots, greedy, etc). I believe that most conservatives, just like most liberals, love this country and just want the best for it.
#132 - In the event of another Civil War, I think the draft would not… 07/27/2015 on -_-' 0
#130 - 1: A second Civil War could happen many different ways. I supp…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/27/2015 on -_-' 0
#131 - ByeliVolk (07/27/2015) [-]
Civil wars do happen in the world all the time but usually in third world / developing countries, they very rarely ever happen in modern first world countries and a forced conscription as known as the Draft would have many negative consequences that would result in a backlash and lowering the popularity of current holding president in term at that time and would be more infamous then Zachary Taylor. I know of maybe one country that would sell to the South Rebels in the case of it happening and that would be the French for they really do not give a shit since they have sold to our enemies before they will sell to them again and they would repeat their sells like the did in the First American Civil War. The Rebels would have allies but it would be in countries that oppose us or no longer care for us. China would definitely do it and so would Russia if it meant they could claim American Soil.

You bring up good points but what I am pointing out here is that in the current situation if a Civil War was to break out now in modern times the amount of casualties would be high and the amount of backlash and problems would be too high.

Your second point I think I want to point out is that unless you put out a forceful Draft the idea of making up enough recruits to replace defectors would be astronomical. And to win a war that you enemy has forcefully captured your assets that you have garnered and use the same tech as you it becomes hard to field enough assets to cover the deficit. Also the same State in the past would be the most valuable state again in the case of the Secession which is Virgina since it has closet proximity to the Capital and fastest access to the leader.
User avatar #132 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
In the event of another Civil War, I think the draft would not be as unpopular as you think. The reason for this is that the rebels would be an immediate threat to the American people and would be actively trying to take over American land. During WW2, the draft was not especially unpopular due to the fact that soldiers viewed themselves as defending America against the Japanese and the Nazis. The Vietnam War, which saw an extremely unpopular draft, was not a defensive war. Our soldiers were not being viewed as defending America in that war. Instead, people just saw young men getting shipped off to die in a far away land.

I will say that I would not be surprised if China and Russia sold weapons to both the U.S. government and the rebels. Both of those countries have historically been very willing to make money off of others' wars (much like the U.S.). However, I don't see any basis to assume that either China or Russia would be interested in trying to take U.S. territory for themselves. First, both China and Russia are located on the other side of the planet. It would be extremely difficult for either country to transport the sheer volume of troops and supplies across the Pacific Ocean required to conquer America. Second, both China and Russia have their own local territorial disputes already. I think if they were to gain any territory from a U.S. civil war, it would only be within their own continents. Third, the U.S. has nukes stationed all over the world, which makes invasion an extremely bad idea. If either China or Russia were to invade, they could probably count on being nuked at some point.

Also, what are you referring to when you say France has sold to our enemies before? I'm not talking about the previous Civil War, because that was before NATO. If the French government were to do that openly nowadays, it would be a breach of the NATO treaty like I mentioned before.

I think it is important to point out that while the rebels would have many of the same assets as the U.S. government, they would be missing a very important piece. The Navy. The U.S. has a massive navy. The rebels would quickly see their ports blockaded and would be subject to airstrikes and landing parties from the sea.

I will definitely say that I agree with you in terms of the potential for casualties. They would definitely be massive and catastrophic for both sides.
#84 - He also always sues a crapload of people/media organizations e… 07/26/2015 on Top Trumps 0
#82 - I recommend that you start participating in every caucus/prima… 07/26/2015 on Top Trumps 0
#198 - Wait.. So you'd be as thin as a "democratic" autocra…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/26/2015 on What's your excuse? 0
User avatar #199 - lordsepulchure (07/26/2015) [-]
Anorectic*
#220 - destismad has deleted their comment.
#127 - Interesting quotes, but I need you to cite the sources if I am… 07/26/2015 on -_-' 0
#126 - No one is legitimately trying. I suppose there are probably a … 07/26/2015 on -_-' 0
#125 - 1: I think as it stands right now, only a very small portion d…  [+] (4 new replies) 07/26/2015 on -_-' 0
#128 - ByeliVolk (07/26/2015) [-]
Depends on how you look at it. If there was a Second Civil war you would have to admit there would be a majority of the people wanting to secede from the United States to do so just like the first one. The second point is that the soldiers aboard are probably not going to be willing to attack and kill possible family members and would try to sabotage a majority of the missions. NATO countries would try to sell to the Rebels while sending them old military surplus if there was any and after the Civil War would strike and gain control of the land. Also if a Nuke was involved it would possibly launch WW3 because of retaliation effect if used which would be the last thing we would want.
User avatar #130 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
1: A second Civil War could happen many different ways. I suppose we can't know for sure exactly how many people would have to want to secede in order for it to actually happen.
2: Civil wars happen all over the world. While soldiers being ordered to fight their own countrymen is always hard, it hasn't stopped governmental forces from winning civil wars in the past. I will say, we would probably see a number of southerners desert the military, but I think northern recruits would make up for it.
3: I don't think NATO would be likely to aid with the rebels in a Second Civil War in any way. First, Article 5 of the Nato treaty requires all member states to come to the aid of any other member state which is subject to an armed attack. If they did not help the USA, they would be breaking the treaty, which in the current state of global affairs, would be a very bad thing to do. I don't see why NATO would try and strike to gain control of the land. None of the current NATO governments seem particularly expansionist.
4: Yes, launching nuclear weapons always carries the potential to start WW3. However, in this case, I think it would be unlikely. The rebels would have no State allies. Both WW1 and WW2 took place between 2 groups of allied countries (Allied Powers vs. Central Powers in WW1, and the Allies vs. the Axis in WW2). I'll say it again, the Rebels would have no allies. Even the USA's rivals, like China, are to economically interconnected with the US to justify supporting the rebels.
#131 - ByeliVolk (07/27/2015) [-]
Civil wars do happen in the world all the time but usually in third world / developing countries, they very rarely ever happen in modern first world countries and a forced conscription as known as the Draft would have many negative consequences that would result in a backlash and lowering the popularity of current holding president in term at that time and would be more infamous then Zachary Taylor. I know of maybe one country that would sell to the South Rebels in the case of it happening and that would be the French for they really do not give a shit since they have sold to our enemies before they will sell to them again and they would repeat their sells like the did in the First American Civil War. The Rebels would have allies but it would be in countries that oppose us or no longer care for us. China would definitely do it and so would Russia if it meant they could claim American Soil.

You bring up good points but what I am pointing out here is that in the current situation if a Civil War was to break out now in modern times the amount of casualties would be high and the amount of backlash and problems would be too high.

Your second point I think I want to point out is that unless you put out a forceful Draft the idea of making up enough recruits to replace defectors would be astronomical. And to win a war that you enemy has forcefully captured your assets that you have garnered and use the same tech as you it becomes hard to field enough assets to cover the deficit. Also the same State in the past would be the most valuable state again in the case of the Secession which is Virgina since it has closet proximity to the Capital and fastest access to the leader.
User avatar #132 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
In the event of another Civil War, I think the draft would not be as unpopular as you think. The reason for this is that the rebels would be an immediate threat to the American people and would be actively trying to take over American land. During WW2, the draft was not especially unpopular due to the fact that soldiers viewed themselves as defending America against the Japanese and the Nazis. The Vietnam War, which saw an extremely unpopular draft, was not a defensive war. Our soldiers were not being viewed as defending America in that war. Instead, people just saw young men getting shipped off to die in a far away land.

I will say that I would not be surprised if China and Russia sold weapons to both the U.S. government and the rebels. Both of those countries have historically been very willing to make money off of others' wars (much like the U.S.). However, I don't see any basis to assume that either China or Russia would be interested in trying to take U.S. territory for themselves. First, both China and Russia are located on the other side of the planet. It would be extremely difficult for either country to transport the sheer volume of troops and supplies across the Pacific Ocean required to conquer America. Second, both China and Russia have their own local territorial disputes already. I think if they were to gain any territory from a U.S. civil war, it would only be within their own continents. Third, the U.S. has nukes stationed all over the world, which makes invasion an extremely bad idea. If either China or Russia were to invade, they could probably count on being nuked at some point.

Also, what are you referring to when you say France has sold to our enemies before? I'm not talking about the previous Civil War, because that was before NATO. If the French government were to do that openly nowadays, it would be a breach of the NATO treaty like I mentioned before.

I think it is important to point out that while the rebels would have many of the same assets as the U.S. government, they would be missing a very important piece. The Navy. The U.S. has a massive navy. The rebels would quickly see their ports blockaded and would be subject to airstrikes and landing parties from the sea.

I will definitely say that I agree with you in terms of the potential for casualties. They would definitely be massive and catastrophic for both sides.
#95 - Like the other posters said, no one is trying to ban the flag.…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/26/2015 on -_-' +1
#98 - anon (07/26/2015) [-]
No one is trying to ban the flag?
User avatar #126 - Deeticky (07/26/2015) [-]
No one is legitimately trying. I suppose there are probably a few people who want to see it legally banned, but nobody important is listening to them. Even the vast majority of people who protested the Confederate Flag recently only wanted to see it removed from the SC State House.
#93 - I know, right? The fact that it includes a picture of a man wh…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/26/2015 on -_-' 0
#104 - anon (07/26/2015) [-]
"In sustaining the claim of Johnson to the perpetual service of Casor, the court also gave judicial sanction to the right of free Negroes to own slaves of their own race. In a 1916 article, John H. Russell wrote "Indeed <b>no earlier record, to our knowledge, has been found of judicial support given to slavery in Virginia except as a punishment for a crime.</b>"
User avatar #127 - Deeticky (07/26/2015) [-]
Interesting quotes, but I need you to cite the sources if I am to evaluate them.
#91 - 1: You're making the assumption that all those military bases …  [+] (6 new replies) 07/26/2015 on -_-' 0
#108 - anon (07/26/2015) [-]
1) You're making the assumption that only a small portion of the population would support seceding from the North. If that wasn't the case, then who would the military bases in the South support, their friends and families, or the people who want to kill their friends and families?
2) Who would rush to kill people in the South in order to keep them under the control of the Federal government?
3) NATO wouldn't likely get involved in a US civil war.
4) If the Southern rebels got control of 1 nuclear weapon (of the many in the South which are manned by Southerners), the North would be forced to abandon reconquering the South.
User avatar #125 - Deeticky (07/26/2015) [-]
1: I think as it stands right now, only a very small portion does support Southern rebellion.
2: The President and military high command would order soldiers stationed abroad to come back to the U.S. to fight the rebels. That's pretty straightforward.
3: Depends. For one thing, NATO has invested interest in helping the U.S. maintain the status quo. The U.S.A.'s massive military is one of the things that makes NATO so powerful. In addition, I think most NATO countries would relish the opportunity to place the U.S. in their debt by helping with the war effort.
4: I will say that yes, if the rebels gained control of nukes, it would make things a lot harder for the North. However, the North still has plenty of Nukes of its own, as well as plenty of submarines carrying nuclear missiles. Mutually Assured Destruction would still be at play, and I think that neither the South nor the North wants to see the entire country become a nuclear wasteland.
5: You're forgetting about the DEATH STAR.
#128 - ByeliVolk (07/26/2015) [-]
Depends on how you look at it. If there was a Second Civil war you would have to admit there would be a majority of the people wanting to secede from the United States to do so just like the first one. The second point is that the soldiers aboard are probably not going to be willing to attack and kill possible family members and would try to sabotage a majority of the missions. NATO countries would try to sell to the Rebels while sending them old military surplus if there was any and after the Civil War would strike and gain control of the land. Also if a Nuke was involved it would possibly launch WW3 because of retaliation effect if used which would be the last thing we would want.
User avatar #130 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
1: A second Civil War could happen many different ways. I suppose we can't know for sure exactly how many people would have to want to secede in order for it to actually happen.
2: Civil wars happen all over the world. While soldiers being ordered to fight their own countrymen is always hard, it hasn't stopped governmental forces from winning civil wars in the past. I will say, we would probably see a number of southerners desert the military, but I think northern recruits would make up for it.
3: I don't think NATO would be likely to aid with the rebels in a Second Civil War in any way. First, Article 5 of the Nato treaty requires all member states to come to the aid of any other member state which is subject to an armed attack. If they did not help the USA, they would be breaking the treaty, which in the current state of global affairs, would be a very bad thing to do. I don't see why NATO would try and strike to gain control of the land. None of the current NATO governments seem particularly expansionist.
4: Yes, launching nuclear weapons always carries the potential to start WW3. However, in this case, I think it would be unlikely. The rebels would have no State allies. Both WW1 and WW2 took place between 2 groups of allied countries (Allied Powers vs. Central Powers in WW1, and the Allies vs. the Axis in WW2). I'll say it again, the Rebels would have no allies. Even the USA's rivals, like China, are to economically interconnected with the US to justify supporting the rebels.
#131 - ByeliVolk (07/27/2015) [-]
Civil wars do happen in the world all the time but usually in third world / developing countries, they very rarely ever happen in modern first world countries and a forced conscription as known as the Draft would have many negative consequences that would result in a backlash and lowering the popularity of current holding president in term at that time and would be more infamous then Zachary Taylor. I know of maybe one country that would sell to the South Rebels in the case of it happening and that would be the French for they really do not give a shit since they have sold to our enemies before they will sell to them again and they would repeat their sells like the did in the First American Civil War. The Rebels would have allies but it would be in countries that oppose us or no longer care for us. China would definitely do it and so would Russia if it meant they could claim American Soil.

You bring up good points but what I am pointing out here is that in the current situation if a Civil War was to break out now in modern times the amount of casualties would be high and the amount of backlash and problems would be too high.

Your second point I think I want to point out is that unless you put out a forceful Draft the idea of making up enough recruits to replace defectors would be astronomical. And to win a war that you enemy has forcefully captured your assets that you have garnered and use the same tech as you it becomes hard to field enough assets to cover the deficit. Also the same State in the past would be the most valuable state again in the case of the Secession which is Virgina since it has closet proximity to the Capital and fastest access to the leader.
User avatar #132 - Deeticky (07/27/2015) [-]
In the event of another Civil War, I think the draft would not be as unpopular as you think. The reason for this is that the rebels would be an immediate threat to the American people and would be actively trying to take over American land. During WW2, the draft was not especially unpopular due to the fact that soldiers viewed themselves as defending America against the Japanese and the Nazis. The Vietnam War, which saw an extremely unpopular draft, was not a defensive war. Our soldiers were not being viewed as defending America in that war. Instead, people just saw young men getting shipped off to die in a far away land.

I will say that I would not be surprised if China and Russia sold weapons to both the U.S. government and the rebels. Both of those countries have historically been very willing to make money off of others' wars (much like the U.S.). However, I don't see any basis to assume that either China or Russia would be interested in trying to take U.S. territory for themselves. First, both China and Russia are located on the other side of the planet. It would be extremely difficult for either country to transport the sheer volume of troops and supplies across the Pacific Ocean required to conquer America. Second, both China and Russia have their own local territorial disputes already. I think if they were to gain any territory from a U.S. civil war, it would only be within their own continents. Third, the U.S. has nukes stationed all over the world, which makes invasion an extremely bad idea. If either China or Russia were to invade, they could probably count on being nuked at some point.

Also, what are you referring to when you say France has sold to our enemies before? I'm not talking about the previous Civil War, because that was before NATO. If the French government were to do that openly nowadays, it would be a breach of the NATO treaty like I mentioned before.

I think it is important to point out that while the rebels would have many of the same assets as the U.S. government, they would be missing a very important piece. The Navy. The U.S. has a massive navy. The rebels would quickly see their ports blockaded and would be subject to airstrikes and landing parties from the sea.

I will definitely say that I agree with you in terms of the potential for casualties. They would definitely be massive and catastrophic for both sides.
#90 - Nope, flying the Confederate Flag on your own property as a pr… 07/26/2015 on -_-' 0
#89 - I'm pretty sure that's exactly what has been done. The Confede… 07/26/2015 on -_-' 0
#88 - I agree with what you are saying in principle. However, I have… 07/26/2015 on -_-' 0
#79 - *Fewer Minions 07/26/2015 on Sonicion? 0
#56 - Hmm... So what you're saying is that the clotheshanger industr… 07/24/2015 on Abort +3
#72 - As many other users have already pointed out, there are a coup… 07/24/2015 on Crunching numbers +6
#134 - Replying to your comment #133. I have been trying to …  [+] (3 new replies) 07/15/2015 on Triggers 0
User avatar #135 - infinitereaper (07/15/2015) [-]
We differ in the most important of ways. You don't seem to realize why there is reason to be angry, but if knew what I knew you'd be angry, it's obvious that despite any amount of agreement you are simply unaware.

Humanity has forfeited it's future, the next 100 years will be ugly, corruption rules the day and everything is so corrupt it's not even, it would be easier to point things out that aren't. The food supply, human health, even scientific advancement. Ugh. Special interest, and mega corps.

My plan to to survive as long as possible and acquire as much wealth as possible, so that I may fund the scientific minds will help create my ticket to the future, maybe even our future.

Humanity is doomed. Either I survive long enough to get ahead of the curve or die trying. Morality is pointless. "Understanding" people is pointless.

I don't take you seriously because you're stuck in the human illusion. I doubt you even aware of the full scale of just how fucked the human world is, and how no system can change the tides brought on by the growing idiocracy. Whether or not you understand me doesn't matter.
#136 - anon (07/16/2015) [-]
**anonymous used "*roll picture*"**
**anonymous rolled image**You're both morons, Deeticky is an insult to the Ron Swanson icon he has, and infinitereaper is an edgy teen with an inferiority and superiority complex.
You're both right about some things, and you're both wrong about some other things. No one is right all the time. Deeticky, stop being such a wet blanket, the world isn't fucking perfect and people are stupid panicky creatures. infinitereaper stop being such an angry, entitled little cunt rag, just because people are stupid and Deeticky is naive doesn't mean he's an idiot, his arguments are well founded in logic as far as he knows. Yes psychology is a failure of a field of science, because it's a fucking social science that's linked to sociology, it's all maths and numbers at the end of the day anyway.
Psychology works to label personality types because humans like to label things, it's what we fucking do, you can stick as much science and chemicals behind a label as you want, at the end of the day, it means jack fucking shit. As long as people agree on how things work, that's how they work. If someone looks at the colour blue and tells people it's green and the other colour is blue, there's something wrong with him. Of course there is, the person is a fuck-bag. If that person really saw green and blue as reversed colours, he would have no fucking way to communicate that, because he's been taught all his life to call them those colours, if his eyes were broken and he registered the colours differently all his life, he'd have no way to reveal that. And it doesn't fucking matter.
User avatar #137 - infinitereaper (07/16/2015) [-]
no one is listening to you anon
#132 - I had to reply to this comment again because the website would…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/14/2015 on Triggers 0
User avatar #133 - infinitereaper (07/14/2015) [-]
Thread limits. It happens.
I care not. All drugs should be decriminalized. It isn't the choice of the government nor anyone else what you put into your body, nor all all drugs the same. Psychedelics being a prime example. There is a war on drugs, and the medical industry is full of shit. None of that helps or can help. Thankfully there is much more information and collaboration on substances on the internet than there used to be.

Then you should know it cannot be fixed. Not in it's current state. The profit machine of healthcare needs to be abolished and replaced with nationalized universal healthcare. As well as accountability for doctors to actually deliver fucking results.

People can read sure, doesn't mean they actually read. Like my word play there?
If democracy has proven anything it's the ignorance of the masses. Just look at how may people doubt global warming because of the deception by the industry and special interest. Or what about the state of the food supply? People are idiots.

You might have a point except that our brain size is shrinking faster than our bodies are. The proof is in the EQ.

Frankly, because I don't give a shit. My only concern is myself. Waste my time and hostility you will find. Spout nonsense and you will aggravate me.

If you had a single redeeming quality, and managed to show a hint of actual understanding out of your game of pretend, I might actually be able to hold a decent conversation with you.

But all I hear are stupid misconceptions, and ideological fallices I heard a million times before.
And I'm not going to fucking spoonfeed you.

I hate you because I understand what you are but you do not.
#130 - In 2012, I had a major spinal fusion surgery to correct a 90 d…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/14/2015 on Triggers 0
#131 - infinitereaper (07/14/2015) [-]
In 1994 I was born, and little did I know years of a degenerate unknown incurable disease would slowly ravage my body leaving me with an untreated condition and symptoms, part of which result in chronic pain throughout my abdomen. An entire life time of both pain and illness wearing me down since the moment I was born.
Don't talk about drugs like you know anything about them. To begin with. What I need is to be pain free, and I have to turn to a species of tree related to the coffee plant for 2 chemicals that are partial agonist of my u and something else receptor. Because American healthcare is a god damned joke filled with ignorant, arrogant doctors who would rather have people suffer needlessly in pain.

Because I have zero tolerance for other people's idiocy. This broken vessel of mine more than anything has taught me that you can't rely on anyone but yourself, because we live in a world were stupidity and ignorance reigns supreme. I am trapped, entangled in those strings. But as long as my heart still beats I will seize power. I will not let morons continue to stand in my way.

Because you can't argue with idiots.
To be honest you sound like some naive.
I hate those illusions.

I aim to break those illusions. To watch people crumble under the weight of their own sins. The playing field is finally equal. And the majority of humanity just can't handle it.

The average human brain is shrinking, and will shrink even more. Natural selection is out the window.
Society is plagued by a species on decline.

I have no tolerance for such people.
I have no tolerance for anyone who stands in my way.
#128 - It saddens me to see a person so lost in their own small world…  [+] (5 new replies) 07/13/2015 on Triggers 0
User avatar #129 - infinitereaper (07/13/2015) [-]
And your words mean nothing to me. That's all you have on the internet.
You haven't said a single thing that has impressed me.

I suffer from chronic pain. So frankly, I don't give a shit.
You have no proof of anything you say either. Nothing. Nada Zip.
I have no reason to believe your words.

It's just a farce, but since you like to play pretend so much, it's obvious it's going to bite you in the ass eventually. In one form or another.

And nice "evidence" there m8.
Like I said. You don't understand anything. You're just a fucking idiot too stupid to understand people on your own.
User avatar #132 - Deeticky (07/14/2015) [-]
I had to reply to this comment again because the website would not allow me to reply to your most recent comment.

I'm very sorry to hear that you have a condition which causes you to suffer. Chronic pain is incredibly difficult to live with (I know that all too well). Honestly, I would like to see more drugs legalized for healthcare purposes. I don't have a problem with people using drugs for health reasons, the problem comes when people without the proper education and training self-medicate using illicit drugs.

I agree with you that the American healthcare system is broken (Don't forget, I have also had to deal with it throughout my whole life). That is something I am actively campaigning to fix right now.

You say that we live in a world where idiocy reigns supreme, yet global literacy rates are higher than they have ever been before. We are living in the middle of a technological Renaissance, with access to more information than any other human being who has come before us.

Brain size has nothing to do with intelligence. Elephants and whales have brains that are significantly larger than humans. Does that mean that they are more intelligent than we are?

You said you have zero tolerance for what you perceive as other people's idiocy. Is that why you call me names on the internet? What does that accomplish exactly? You sound like you have some goals for yourself (to "seize power," etc.). How do you plan to accomplish your goals? You said you would not let anyone stand in your way, what does that mean? Why is it, that you chose to use an intimidating tone in your last post (the tone having been set by your attached image)?

User avatar #133 - infinitereaper (07/14/2015) [-]
Thread limits. It happens.
I care not. All drugs should be decriminalized. It isn't the choice of the government nor anyone else what you put into your body, nor all all drugs the same. Psychedelics being a prime example. There is a war on drugs, and the medical industry is full of shit. None of that helps or can help. Thankfully there is much more information and collaboration on substances on the internet than there used to be.

Then you should know it cannot be fixed. Not in it's current state. The profit machine of healthcare needs to be abolished and replaced with nationalized universal healthcare. As well as accountability for doctors to actually deliver fucking results.

People can read sure, doesn't mean they actually read. Like my word play there?
If democracy has proven anything it's the ignorance of the masses. Just look at how may people doubt global warming because of the deception by the industry and special interest. Or what about the state of the food supply? People are idiots.

You might have a point except that our brain size is shrinking faster than our bodies are. The proof is in the EQ.

Frankly, because I don't give a shit. My only concern is myself. Waste my time and hostility you will find. Spout nonsense and you will aggravate me.

If you had a single redeeming quality, and managed to show a hint of actual understanding out of your game of pretend, I might actually be able to hold a decent conversation with you.

But all I hear are stupid misconceptions, and ideological fallices I heard a million times before.
And I'm not going to fucking spoonfeed you.

I hate you because I understand what you are but you do not.
User avatar #130 - Deeticky (07/14/2015) [-]
In 2012, I had a major spinal fusion surgery to correct a 90 degree kyphosis (hunchback). I suffer from severe chronic pain as well. I don't need illicit drugs to deal with that. My mental fortitude and willpower allow me to keep moving forward despite the pain (with a little help from some Advil).

Also, I am not trying to impress you. I honestly just want to understand why someone who appears to be educated (at least when it comes to spelling and grammar) feels the need to be so hostile towards other people. As a person with a hunchback, I was terribly bullied from elementary through high school. I want to better understand why people feel the need to be so hostile, like my bullies were.

So far, you have called me a "stupid woman," "a cuck faggot," "an idiot ," "a goddamned idiot", "dipshit," "a parasite," and "a fucking idiot."

Do you act that way in real life? Or just over the internet? What do you feel like that accomplishes? Why do you so readily engage in name-calling (the lowest form of debate)?
#131 - infinitereaper (07/14/2015) [-]
In 1994 I was born, and little did I know years of a degenerate unknown incurable disease would slowly ravage my body leaving me with an untreated condition and symptoms, part of which result in chronic pain throughout my abdomen. An entire life time of both pain and illness wearing me down since the moment I was born.
Don't talk about drugs like you know anything about them. To begin with. What I need is to be pain free, and I have to turn to a species of tree related to the coffee plant for 2 chemicals that are partial agonist of my u and something else receptor. Because American healthcare is a god damned joke filled with ignorant, arrogant doctors who would rather have people suffer needlessly in pain.

Because I have zero tolerance for other people's idiocy. This broken vessel of mine more than anything has taught me that you can't rely on anyone but yourself, because we live in a world were stupidity and ignorance reigns supreme. I am trapped, entangled in those strings. But as long as my heart still beats I will seize power. I will not let morons continue to stand in my way.

Because you can't argue with idiots.
To be honest you sound like some naive.
I hate those illusions.

I aim to break those illusions. To watch people crumble under the weight of their own sins. The playing field is finally equal. And the majority of humanity just can't handle it.

The average human brain is shrinking, and will shrink even more. Natural selection is out the window.
Society is plagued by a species on decline.

I have no tolerance for such people.
I have no tolerance for anyone who stands in my way.

items

Total unique items point value: 1870 / Total items point value: 2370
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #7 - atomicman (01/17/2014) [-]
If only we got to meet each other in person. I'm sure we'd be become great friends.
#4 - traffy (01/02/2014) [-]
**traffy rolls 65**
**traffy rolls 65**
User avatar #1 - CannonFodder (10/26/2012) [-]
I hadn't been on FJ for ~ 1.5 years so I don't know what has/hasn't been done. Just couldn't be ****** studying so drew that instead. Didn't mean to annoy peeps but cheers for the feedback man
User avatar #5 to #1 - traffy (01/02/2014) [-]
you should shut the **** up
User avatar #6 to #5 - CannonFodder (01/04/2014) [-]
Lol care
 Friends (0)