NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's a must-read exit letter from Andrew Lahde, a hedge-fund manager who earned an 866 percent return last year by betting on a subprime mortgage collapse. Enjoy:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b0a40c72-9c83-11dd-a42e-000077b07658,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fb0a40c72-9c83-11dd-a42e-000077b07658.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.foreignpolicy.com%2Fposts%2F2008%2F10%2F18%2Fhedge_fund_manager_so_long _idiots_smoke_pot&nclick_check=1
Another bank/financial whiz that was truly overpaid for years, exudes the base qualities of greed and self-interest, and has no stake in the USA and has no understanding of his role in this world.

Pitiful and good riddance. The problem, of course, is now millions in this country have to pay for the mistakes of this fool, and many others like him. At least I don't have to listen to him anymore because he and those like him will become irrelevant while the rest of us figure out how to pick up ourselves and our country, move on, and never let people like this have so much power and concentrated capital in a concentrated few without regulation again.

The percentage unemployed is rising.

yes I'd be bloody surprised if it wasn't but the numbers don't show any picture of the homeless crowding the streets anytime soon and it looks as though the initial shock is over now so I guess that invalidates any mass unemployment scenario

No. And the cyclical nature of economic vagaries is irrelevant. The trouble is real now. The fact that it will change in future has nothing to do with now.

you must really shit your pants every 10 years or so

No, it does not. It does not happen all the time that people perfectly capable of paying their mortgages, who are not in arrears in their payments, are still being foreclosed on.

look at the numbers (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44217000/gif/_44217520_foreclosures_graph203.gif)

this is the engine that has knocked the recession in and yet are we seeing large parts of the US being affected by an industry which is currently in shock? no

Also it does not always happen that so many foreclosures happen all at once and keep happening over such a long period of time.

nor will this one we have seen a steady spike in foreclosures since 2006 I beleive which is pretty good as far as sudden shocks go

No, the results of their refusal to extend business credit signals the beginning of a collapse to me.

yes businesses that usually rely on loans (for instance bulk ordering) will have a hard time of it but whats new with that?

But since you clearly hve no idea what is actually going on, your opinion and predictions are worthless.

try to be more diplomatic its 10 past 1 on a Tuesday morning here and if you feel like making arguments that just annoy me I have much better things to be doing

I am saying that the US has entered the beginning stages of a collapse

what I'm saying is its not and that talk of the US nearing a massive decline have been suggested ever since the nation came into being

I'm reminded of the British empires vanity in its obsession with ancient Rome

yes I'd be bloody surprised if <snip>
Sorry, I'm not listening to you anymore for the reason I gave you. If you're interested though, please see my edit to my earlier post. But I'm not going to spend any more time arguing with you, since you don't know what you are talking about. I'm sure someone else will be happy to engage your points, if only for the fun.

I doubt that civil unrest would occur short of widespread hunger in the country, and possibly very obvious displays of non-suffering by the rich.

To me, the idea of American citizens getting mad enough for the result to be called "civil unrest" would be something akin to the 1863 Draft Riots in NYC.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/draftriots.htm

That was three days of significant violence, murder and destruction set off by a combination of long-standing, simmering, general public dissatisfaction plus a grossly and obviously unjust government action (the match tossed into the gasoline). It had to be put down by the army. Witnesses to the events said it was the closest the country had come to revolution since The Revolution, and some historians since then have agreed with that assessment.

Since then, there have been many injustices inflicted on the American people, and many instances of gross failure and exposed criminality in the US government that have had horrible effects on the people. Yet we have not seen a repetition of anything remotely like the Draft Riots. I have said for a long time that Americans are not a rioting people. I think it would take a lot to get us as desperate and angry as people were in 1863.

However, that is not to say it is not possible. But I think the suffering of the people would have to be equivalent to what it was then, and frankly, I think most Americans still feel that they can figure something out for themselves, even if the government isn't there for them. I think the government and most social systems could come completely apart, and the most you would see would be isolated outbursts of violence in high pressure areas, while the rest of the people pick up and do for themselves. If they lose that self-confidence, or if they come to believe that the government is deliberately stopping them from getting themselves out of whatever hole they are in, then things could get dangerous.

EDIT: Don't mistake me. I think if things get really bad for the majority of people, most Americans will simply turn to crime. They will cooperate with gangs or the mob. They will steal food and traffick in stolen goods. They will squat in empty properties. They will not pay their taxes. And they will likely think nothing of it, because it is what they will have to do. You will see an increase in crime, but that is not the same as "civil unrest." I think NYC of the 1970s/1980s is more likely to be the model than NYC of 1863.
Actually, what you term as "civil unrest" was actually a "riot."

I think if you google, "riot," "uprising," "protest" and similar words, you will find different results, many of which involve police and protestors, arrests, use of violence and so on, well after the 1863 "draft" riot in NYC.

For examples of when people have had enough and are willing to take beatings and be imprisoned from and by the police (without the press calling it a "riot" per se) see, e.g..:

Stonewall riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Stonewall riots were a series of spontaneous, violent demonstrations against a ... After the Stonewall riots, gays and lesbians in New York City faced ...... Many new activists consider the Stonewall uprising the birth of the gay ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots - 174k - Cached - Similar pages -

(i.e., also known as a forerunner or part of the history to the Sean Penn movie "Milk")

For a good summary of "civil unrest" in the United States, allegedly the topic of this thread, see also the following cite which documents such actions in the US from the 18th to the 21st centuries:

List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States - Wikipedia ...The following is a list of major incidents of civil unrest, rioting and .... 7-13, Miami, Florida; 1968 - 1968 Democratic National Convention protests riot, Aug. .... 1997 - The July 4th Immigration Demonstration Lockdown, July 1997, ... 2000 - Puerto Rican Day Parade riot in Central Park New York City, New York ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States - 86k - Cached - Similar pages -
More results from en.wikipedia.org »

I am not sure what everyone means by "civil unrest" in this thread--but to me--it encompasses anything involving more than one person writing a post on the internet, who congregate in one place making their voices heard so loudly, that the press and the police take notice.

Alright, I'll mellow out now. :tongue:

GOBAMAWIN, to make sure we're on the same page, there is a reason this thread is entitled "Discussion on civil unrest in the US" and not "Race riots will come to the US." It's an open ended discussion, I never made any strong claims in the original post, because I want to learn what you all think since I myself am quite confused and uncertain about the future of this country. If I offended you by inadvertently appearing to believe race riots will come to this country then I apologize.
Thank you, TRILATERAL COMMISSION, I appreciate the gesture and measured response.

It is most appreciated.

Alright, I'll mellow out now. :tongue:

GOBAMAWIN, to make sure we're on the same page, there is a reason this thread is entitled "Discussion on civil unrest in the US" and not "Race riots will come to the US." It's an open ended discussion, I never made any strong claims in the original post, because I want to learn what you all think since I myself am quite confused and uncertain about the future of this country. If I offended you by inadvertently appearing to believe race riots will come to this country then I apologize.
Now, TRILATERAL COMMISSION, will you also reconsider the "poll" that you created for people to respond to? In my opinion, other than option 1, you gave the people being polled, including myself, no option to pick other than violence:

"Your prediction of social stability in US in next few years:
* The economy is in bad shape, but life will go on pretty much peacefully as normal.
* Civil situation will deteriorate; lots of violence
* Mad Max and the Thunderdome"

Did I misinterpret the "poll" or miss the joke here too?

Actually, what you term as "civil unrest" was actually a "riot."

I think if you google, "riot," "uprising," "protest" and similar words, you will find different results, many of which involve police and protestors, arrests, use of violence and so on, well after the 1863 "draft" riot in NYC.

For examples of when people have had enough and are willing to take beatings and be imprisoned from and by the police (without the press calling it a "riot" per se) see, e.g..:

Stonewall riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Stonewall riots were a series of spontaneous, violent demonstrations against a ... After the Stonewall riots, gays and lesbians in New York City faced ...... Many new activists consider the Stonewall uprising the birth of the gay ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots - 174k - Cached - Similar pages -

(i.e., also known as a forerunner or part of the history to the Sean Penn movie "Milk")

For a good summary of "civil unrest" in the United States, allegedly the topic of this thread, see also the following cite which documents such actions in the US from the 18th to the 21st centuries:

List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States - Wikipedia ...The following is a list of major incidents of civil unrest, rioting and .... 7-13, Miami, Florida; 1968 - 1968 Democratic National Convention protests riot, Aug. .... 1997 - The July 4th Immigration Demonstration Lockdown, July 1997, ... 2000 - Puerto Rican Day Parade riot in Central Park New York City, New York ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States - 86k - Cached - Similar pages -
More results from en.wikipedia.org »

I am not sure what everyone means by "civil unrest" in this thread--but to me--it encompasses anything involving more than one person writing a post on the internet, who congregate in one place making their voices heard so loudly, that the press and the police take notice.
So...civil unrest can include riots, eh? Mmm-hm... And therefore the fact that the Draft Riots were...you know...riots, like it says in the name, indicates that they were not civil unrest...how, exactly?

Also, if your personal notion of civil unrest is anything more than random internet blowhards letting off cyber-steam, I would think the Draft Riots would qualify for that, wouldn't you?

My personal notion of civil unrest is that it has to be wide-spread and spreading or liable to continue spreading. It has to disrupt the peaceful flow of social business and activity. It has to threaten to overthrow or seriously disrupt the established social power structure. And it has to be based among the people. To me, civil unrest, is maybe three or four steps short of insurgency.

A better graph, one that includes prior recessions (the 2001 and 1990 recessions were some of the mildest on record, albeit taking considerably longer for job recovery):

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/joblossespostwarii.jpg

Looks like we're following the 1981 track pretty closely. I was nothing more than an unfertilized egg at that time, but for those of you who remember those days, that recession was brutal and not one anybody's particularly fond of repeating. Now, the real question is whether or not there will be a V-shaped or a U-shaped recovery; I think it hinges on how fast jobs are cut relative to the upturn in economic conditions. Sharper job losses with a rapid recovery time lead to a V-shape while lesser job losses and a slower recovery time lead to a U-shape (like 2001). Of course, if we lose this many jobs and it takes as long as it did in 2001 to recover to pre-recession levels (which were still fairly depressed from their 2000 peak)...damn.

So, don't worry about Mad Max. If we didn't fall apart in '48 we're sure as hell not going to in '09.

'80 and '81 should really be the same recession. as i read your graph only really two months between the end of one and the beginning of another at most.

You can't compare the early 80s to now. The recession back then was deliberately induced to fight inflation and wring out excesses. It was an exercise in efficiency.

And so, okay, this time around is in someways the same thing, but the difference is the government is propping things up, not inducing the recession.

It's a significant difference. Just something for all you technicians to think about.

There is no way we get out of this without a 20% haircut (real) in GDP. (At best).

There's no need to fear civil unrest.

All the government needs to do is buy a temple. The next year, everything will go back to normal.

Unless, of course, the world doesn't abide by Civilization rules....

We'll know which graph this is following in 6 months, personally I suspect it will look rather like a mix between '48 and '01, deep and long.

There's as much danger in pulling out of this quickly, most likely through another bubble, as taking the time to properly sort things out.

There's as much danger in pulling out of this quickly, most likely through another bubble, as taking the time to properly sort things out.

Thats what she said :p

So...civil unrest can include riots, eh? Mmm-hm... And therefore the fact that the Draft Riots were...you know...riots, like it says in the name, indicates that they were not civil unrest...how, exactly?

Also, if your personal notion of civil unrest is anything more than random internet blowhards letting off cyber-steam, I would think the Draft Riots would qualify for that, wouldn't you?

My personal notion of civil unrest is that it has to be wide-spread and spreading or liable to continue spreading. It has to disrupt the peaceful flow of social business and activity. It has to threaten to overthrow or seriously disrupt the established social power structure. And it has to be based among the people. To me, civil unrest, is maybe three or four steps short of insurgency.
You, TRIALATERAL COMMISSION and I clearly do not have the same definition of "civil unrest" for the USA.

Apparently, you and TRIALATERAL COMMISSION view it as only a full-fledged "riot" or a "disruption of institutional society" proposition, whereas, I do not.

The great thing that differentiates the USA from Europe, Iceland and other countries where "riots" and "disruption of institutional society" occurs is our right to free speech and assembly (i.e., to protest).

You and TRIALTHALON COMMISSION appear to have forgotten "Kent State" and other "protests" which did not undermine political institutions per se and were not called "riots" but which, nonetheless, had a deep effect on our societal fabric, national policies, our view of ourselves, and the worldview of us as a nation.

Many other countries/governments would not have televised that "non-riot" episode (in your view), and would have simply buried those kids without comment in the media.

The "civil unrest" I envision utilizes those "free speech and assembly" principles, even in the face of oppressive acts by police/local, state and federal governments.

Most of the time the "civil unrest" in the USA (as one person said "yawn"), does not result in violence as we now see in Europe, Iceland and as we have seen at Kent State and Stonehenge; however, this is because the very right to protest and have "civil unrest" (free speech and assembly) creates the needed pressure valve that ameliorates much of the violence.

The media and federal/state/local governments of the USA recognize this, so I am not sure why you and TRILATERAL COMMISSION do not and, instead, seek to posit "all or nothing" (i.e., violence or no violence) propositions, as though nothing short of that matters.

Again, I point out that when people in the USA coalesce in groups and march on the streets resulting in a police presence and media coverage, it is "civil unrest" as commonly known in the USA.

For some reason, no one is satisfied with this notion of "civil unrest," and only bullets flying and bloodshed in the USA streets will do.

I am grateful that our country has this "safety valve" and that there are options short of what are presented in the "poll" and the "hypotheticals" presented by TRILATERAL COMMISSION in this thread. Those do not constitute "real" options most of the time in this country, because of the right to free speech and assembly.

I am very surprised to find that you and many of the posters are not grateful for this option.

There's as much danger in pulling out of this quickly, most likely through another bubble, as taking the time to properly sort things out.

There won't be another bubble. All the asset bubbles we've seen over the past umpteen years are a function of a credit bubble that has been brewing since the 1980s - or there abouts.

As the banks are now broken, and credit is unwinding, that's it for the bubbles for a while.

Not doubtful...



...if the Saudis and other foreigners own that many American assets, it would given them even more incentive to prop up the social order here so their stake isn't a complete waste.

Don't forget China. China's economy is linked to the US's as well.

If the US flops no one will buy the mass produced useless crap that China makes.

If the China economy stops the people will stop ignoring the fact that they live in a dictatorship.

If the US collapses, China will fall soon after.

Both nations are too interdependent on each other.

China is the Producer, the US is the consumer.

You, TRIALATERAL COMMISSION and I clearly do not have the same definition of "civil unrest" for the USA.

Apparently, you and TRIALATERAL COMMISSION view it as only a full-fledged "riot" or a "disruption of institutional society" proposition, whereas, I do not.

The great thing that differentiates the USA from Europe, Iceland and other countries where "riots" and "disruption of institutional society" occurs is our right to free speech and assembly (i.e., to protest).

You and TRIALTHALON COMMISSION appear to have forgotten "Kent State" and other "protests" which did not undermine political institutions per se and were not called "riots" but which, nonetheless, had a deep effect on our societal fabric, national policies, our view of ourselves, and the worldview of us as a nation.

Many other countries/governments would not have televised that "non-riot" episode (in your view), and would have simply buried those kids without comment in the media.

The "civil unrest" I envision utilizes those "free speech and assembly" principles, even in the face of oppressive acts by police/local, state and federal governments.

Most of the time the "civil unrest" in the USA (as one person said "yawn"), does not result in violence as we now see in Europe, Iceland and as we have seen at Kent State and Stonehenge; however, this is because the very right to protest and have "civil unrest" (free speech and assembly) creates the needed pressure valve that ameliorates much of the violence.

The media and federal/state/local governments of the USA recognize this, so I am not sure why you and TRILATERAL COMMISSION do not and, instead, seek to posit "all or nothing" (i.e., violence or no violence) propositions, as though nothing short of that matters.

Again, I point out that when people in the USA coalesce in groups and march on the streets resulting in a police presence and media coverage, it is "civil unrest" as commonly known in the USA.

For some reason, no one is satisfied with this notion of "civil unrest," and only bullets flying and bloodshed in the USA streets will do.

I am grateful that our country has this "safety valve" and that there are options short of what are presented in the "poll" and the "hypotheticals" presented by TRILATERAL COMMISSION in this thread. Those do not constitute "real" options most of the time in this country, because of the right to free speech and assembly.

I am very surprised to find that you and many of the posters are not grateful for this option.
I was wondering when you or someone else would make this argument. You took long enough. :p

It is my view that public protest and peaceful demonstration on social and political issues is what the citizens of the US are SUPPOSED to be doing in our social construct. When people are behaving as they are supposed to, that is not "unrest" in my view. Therefore, the Civil Rights movement was not "civil unrest." Even the anti-Vietnam War movement never rose to the level of "civil unrest" considering that the abuses committed against the protesters did not spark a wave of backlash against the government.

Therefore, the Civil Rights movement was not "civil unrest." Even the anti-Vietnam War movement never rose to the level of "civil unrest" considering that the abuses committed against the protesters did not spark a wave of backlash against the government.What about Bombingham?

((The nickname for Birmingham, Alabama during the '60s.))

What about Bombingham?

((The nickname for Birmingham, Alabama during the '60s.))
I don't know enough about it to judge how much that was a matter of the social cohesion coming apart and a backlash against government power as opposed to individuals within an entrenched social system (racist segregation) engaging in acts of terrorism in an effort to preserve their own local power.

Obviously, there were people in the radical movements/groups of the 60s who did wish to spark civil unrest, but it is my opinion they did not succeed.

I was wondering when you or someone else would make this argument. You took long enough. :p

It is my view that public protest and peaceful demonstration on social and political issues is what the citizens of the US are SUPPOSED to be doing in our social construct. When people are behaving as they are supposed to, that is not "unrest" in my view. Therefore, the Civil Rights movement was not "civil unrest." Even the anti-Vietnam War movement never rose to the level of "civil unrest" considering that the abuses committed against the protesters did not spark a wave of backlash against the government.
That is why we disagree; I view your view as too narrow and you view mine as too broad. Never the twain shall meet.

I have to wonder how many "protests" have you participated in during your life, versus how many "civil unrests?"

Do you ever make your voice heard publicly, even in the face of armed police/national guard?

I don't know enough about it to judge how much that was a matter of the social cohesion coming apart and a backlash against government power as opposed to individuals within an entrenched social system (racist segregation) engaging in acts of terrorism in an effort to preserve their own local power.

Obviously, there were people in the radical movements/groups of the 60s who did wish to spark civil unrest, but it is my opinion they did not succeed.
I guess then we don't have to pursue the "weathermen" or "black panthers" or others in the "underground" militant USA groups anymore! They will be happy to hear that considering they are still coming out of hiding and surrendering so they can go back to their famlies.

I guess then we don't have to pursue the "weathermen" or "black panthers" or others in the "underground" militant USA groups anymore! They will be happy to hear that considering they are still coming out of hiding and surrendering so they can go back to their famlies.

Actually, for the most part we don't pursue them.

And in any event, they only comprised a tiny fraction of the population.

I guess then we don't have to pursue the "weathermen" or "black panthers" or others in the "underground" militant USA groups anymore! They will be happy to hear that considering they are still coming out of hiding and surrendering so they can go back to their famlies.
Um...we don't have to pursue the Weathermen because except for that Ayers guy, most of them blew themselves up at their place in Greenwich Village one day.

As for the Black Panthers, aren't most of them businessmen and city councilmen or somesuch now?

Also, my point is that a few isolated terrorists or wannabe revolutionaries who end up on the run from outstanding warrants =/= "civil unrest."

Fear the poor!

Fear the darkies!

They aren't like us and will turn violent!

:rolleyes:

EDIT: And these from some of the same parties that would oppose social welfare benefits that, if their theories were correct, would prevent the very violence that concerns them. :eek:

Fear the poor!

Fear the darkies!

They aren't like us and will turn violent!

:rolleyes:

EDIT: And these from some of the same parties that would oppose social welfare benefits that, if their theories were correct, would prevent the very violence that concerns them. :eek:
Without judging which posters are guilty of that and which aren't (;)), um... huh-duh, Cat. It's called "oppression." Hello? If the poor don't hate your guts, then you're just not doing it right.

I await a response as to how many of you in the USA and participating in this thread have ever participated in any "protest," "civil disobedience action," "demonstration," "riot" or other form of "civil unrest". . . .?

Anyone in this NationStates gig ever stuck their neck out in any way?

Fear the poor!

Fear the darkies!

They aren't like us and will turn violent!

:rolleyes:

EDIT: And these from some of the same parties that would oppose social welfare benefits that, if their theories were correct, would prevent the very violence that concerns them. :eek:

Well that's not exactly helpful either, is it?

It's not a matter of poor or rich, 'darkies' or not 'darkies'. It's a matter of people finally having enough of the current kleptocracy.

Theory has nothing to do with it, unless you are referring to someone who actually supports the idea of kleptocracy.

I await a response as to how many of you in the USA and participating in this thread have ever participated in any "protest," "civil disobedience action," "demonstration," "riot" or other form of "civil unrest". . . .?

Anyone in this NationStates gig ever stuck their neck out in any way?

I've been in several protests over the years, but none of them unlawful type things. Just holding signs, peacefully picketing things, that sort of stuff. I actually like protesting. For a large part of my life I was against it, but I've rediscovered the joys of it, so to speak.

I've also been involved in lobbying efforts. Honestly though, it's a waste of time at this point. Congress has a constituency, and it's not anyone you know.

Well that's not exactly helpful either, is it?

It's not a matter of poor or rich, 'darkies' or not 'darkies'. It's a matter of people finally having enough of the current kleptocracy.

Theory has nothing to do with it, unless you are referring to someone who actually supports the idea of kleptocracy.

My comments aren't helpful? The horror, the horror. :$:rolleyes:

I was wondering when you or someone else would make this argument. You took long enough. :p

It is my view that public protest and peaceful demonstration on social and political issues is what the citizens of the US are SUPPOSED to be doing in our social construct. When people are behaving as they are supposed to, that is not "unrest" in my view. Therefore, the Civil Rights movement was not "civil unrest." Even the anti-Vietnam War movement never rose to the level of "civil unrest" considering that the abuses committed against the protesters did not spark a wave of backlash against the government.
Your requirement that there be a "backlash against the government"--something more than ordinary, unarmed citizens going up against the full fury of the armed police and national guard, seems strange. . . .

You still seem to want blood in the streets and nothing short of that will satisfy you.

Very sad and rather elitist.

What was the last time you protested or demonstrated by going up against ANY ISSUE with others, and against your local mayor or state governor or federal government, which used local/state/federal police against you and your like-minded friends?

I await a response as to how many of you in the USA and participating in this thread have ever participated in any "protest," "civil disobedience action," "demonstration," "riot" or other form of "civil unrest". . . .?

Anyone in this NationStates gig ever stuck their neck out in any way?
"Civil disobedience" =/= "civil unrest." Peaceful demonstration =/= "civil unrest", especially thanks to the constitutionally protected right to peaceful assembly.

I participated in numerous anti-nuke rallies and marches and helped organize a student group for coordinating such activities in my school, back in the 80s, when there were such things. I was informed by a friend of mine who was a NY cop that the local FBI field office did have a file on us in which our names, including mine, were mentioned. We asked him to look it up because we were curious, since the local FBI office was right across the street from our school. It was so cool. :D

It did not stop me, several years later, from getting a low level security clearance in order to work for a technical publisher that was a DoD subcontractor. The FBI interviewed me for that one and I had to get the cops to take my fingerprints so I could hand them over to the Feds. So, yeah, apparently, my brand of radicalism is okay by Uncle Sam.

Well that's not exactly helpful either, is it?

It's not a matter of poor or rich, 'darkies' or not 'darkies'. It's a matter of people finally having enough of the current kleptocracy.

Theory has nothing to do with it, unless you are referring to someone who actually supports the idea of kleptocracy.
You seem to think TCT is criticizing those who might become...um...unrestful.

I read his remarks as criticizing those who are so fearful that unrest might happen. You know, that "constituency" Congress answers to.

Your requirement that there be a "backlash against the government"--something more than ordinary, unarmed citizens going up against the full fury of the armed police and national guard, seems strange. . . .

You still seem to want blood in the streets and nothing short of that will satisfy you.

Very sad and rather elitist.

What was the last time you protested or demonstrated by going up against ANY ISSUE with others, and against your local mayor or state governor or federal government, which used local/state/federal police against you and your like-minded friends?
What the hell are you ranting about?

My comments aren't helpful? The horror, the horror. :$:rolleyes:

Not really.

"Civil disobedience" =/= "civil unrest." Peaceful demonstration =/= "civil unrest", especially thanks to the constitutionally protected right to peaceful assembly.

I participated in numerous anti-nuke rallies and marches and helped organize a student group for coordinating such activities in my school, back in the 80s, when there were such things. I was informed by a friend of mine who was a NY cop that the local FBI field office did have a file on us in which our names, including mine, were mentioned. We asked him to look it up because we were curious, since the local FBI office was right across the street from our school. It was so cool. :D

It did not stop me, several years later, from getting a low level security clearance in order to work for a technical publisher that was a DoD subcontractor. The FBI interviewed me for that one and I had to get the cops to take my fingerprints so I could hand them over to the Feds. So, yeah, apparently, my brand of radicalism is okay by Uncle Sam.
OHHHHH, you "marched" and "coordinated" you radical you! No "civil unrest" near you!

Very lucky those "activities" did not prevent you from getting a job! I suppose that was in your mind while marching and coordinating. . . .

I don't think you understand the difference between what you are doing when you "march" and "coordinate" and what others are doing when they "protest" and "demonstrate" with police making arrests, using their batons and pulling their guns.

For someone who wants bloodshed to ensure people are making their point, you certainly made sure none of yours was shed for your causes!

Anyone in this NationStates gig ever stuck their neck out in any way?
Stuck my neck out might be an exaggeration, but I've done a fair few marches, sit-ins and demos.

Indeed, I've going to a rally tomorrow in (broad) support for the students currently occupying (http://glasgowunioccupation.blogspot.com/) parts of my uni as an act of protest against the recent shenanigans in Gaza and my uni's links to arms manufacturers.

(However, it must be said, though I agree with the group's main principles, I disagree with some of their demands.)

Which reminds me; must go to bed. Protesting is a tiring business.

I read his remarks as criticizing those who are so fearful that unrest might happen. You know, that "constituency" Congress answers to.

Ah, maybe I misinterpreted then. Internets are hard. :p

If that's the case, withdrawn and all that.

OHHHHH, you "marched" and "coordinated" you radical you! No "civil unrest" near you!

Very lucky those "activities" did not prevent you from getting a job! I suppose that was in your mind while marching and coordinating. . . .

I don't think you understand the difference between what you are doing when you "march" and "coordinate" and what others are doing when they "protest" and "demonstrate" with police making arrests, using their batons and pulling their guns.

For someone who wants bloodshed to ensure people are making their point, you certainly made sure none of yours was shed for your causes!
Still have no clue what the fuck you're on about. Kindly show me where I called for bloodshed.

Hint: I have done no such thing.

Still have no clue what the fuck you're on about. Kindly show me where I called for bloodshed.

Hint: I have done no such thing.I think he confused you for the wrong person...? :confused:

I think he confused you for the wrong person...? :confused:
I hope so. Also :confused:

So...civil unrest can include riots, eh? Mmm-hm... And therefore the fact that the Draft Riots were...you know...riots, like it says in the name, indicates that they were not civil unrest...how, exactly?

Also, if your personal notion of civil unrest is anything more than random internet blowhards letting off cyber-steam, I would think the Draft Riots would qualify for that, wouldn't you?

My personal notion of civil unrest is that it has to be wide-spread and spreading or liable to continue spreading. It has to disrupt the peaceful flow of social business and activity. It has to threaten to overthrow or seriously disrupt the established social power structure. And it has to be based among the people. To me, civil unrest, is maybe three or four steps short of insurgency.
I would say you advocated bloodshed and institituional overthrow above where I am responding to you now.

The point is, that when you marched and coordinated, you had a job or were planning to get one. You were taken care of or were able to take care of yourself, and had options or a future you were thinking and planning.

The 3 million people + in the US now who might be "march[ing]" and "coordinating" (which, according to you and the thread poster will not constitute "civil unrest" absent bloodshed or overthrow of the government) have no homes, no jobs, no way of putting food on the table or taking care of their kids and have no options at all, unlike you did.

With the conditions that exist now, I am saying that you and the poster of this thread might get what you seem to be advocating for which, apparently, is the only form of "civil unrest" acceptable to your definitions, but personally, I hope for the sake of the USA that it does not happen, and that the demonstrations and civil unrest are not bloody and that the basic institutions survive.

Nonetheless, I would call it "civil unrest."

Good night. Ranter signing off.

I would say you advocated bloodshed and institituional overthrow above where I am responding to you now.

The point is, that when you marched and coordinated, you had a job or were planning to get one. You were taken care of or were able to take care of yourself, and had options or a future you were thinking and planning.

The 3 million people + in the US now who might be "march[ing]" and "coordinating" (which, according to you and the thread poster will not constitute "civil unrest" absent bloodshed or overthrow of the government) have no homes, no jobs, no way of putting food on the table or taking care of their kids and have no options at all, unlike you did.

With the conditions that exist now, I am saying that you and the poster of this thread might get what you seem to be advocating for which, apparently, is the only form of "civil unrest" acceptable to your definitions, but personally, I hope for the sake of the USA that it does not happen, and that the demonstrations and civil unrest are not bloody and that the basic institutions survive.

Nonetheless, I would call it "civil unrest."

Good night. Ranter signing off.
I'd say ranter is full of shit and so grossly misrepresenting my statements that it is hardly worth responding to.

I will only ask ranter, if he returns, to explain how giving my personal idea of what constitutes "civil unrest," indicating that it is not a good thing, and that the kinds of things he calls "civil unrest" (demonstrations, marches, civil disobedience) are actually good things and therefore not "civil unrest", adds up to me calling for bloodshed.

I will further ask ranter to read all my posts in the thread to get a better idea of what I am saying, since apparently the single post he isolated, in which I did NOT call for bloodshed, was not clear enough for him.

I'd say ranter is full of shit and so grossly misrepresenting my statements that it is hardly worth responding to.

I will only ask ranter, if he returns, to explain how giving my personal idea of what constitutes "civil unrest," indicating that it is not a good thing, and that the kinds of things he calls "civil unrest" (demonstrations, marches, civil disobedience) are actually good things and therefore not "civil unrest", adds up to me calling for bloodshed.

I will further ask ranter to read all my posts in the thread to get a better idea of what I am saying, since apparently the single post he isolated, in which I did NOT call for bloodshed, was not clear enough for him.

I have read your statements and have to ask what YOU are ranting about? You stated, among other things:

"I was wondering when you or someone else would make this argument. You took long enough."

"It is my view that public protest and peaceful demonstration on social and political issues is what the citizens of the US are SUPPOSED to be doing in our social construct. When people are behaving as they are supposed to, that is not "unrest" in my view. Therefore, the Civil Rights movement was not "civil unrest." Even the anti-Vietnam War movement never rose to the level of "civil unrest" considering that the abuses committed against the protesters did not spark a wave of backlash against the government."

If the examples you gave above do not constitute "civil unrest" in your mind, and that term "civil unrest" means something only if there is a "backlash against the government," what the hell are YOU ranting/talking about?

If you don't think protesting and demonstrating, being shot, beaten and killed by police while you protest a condition or war or whatever do not constitute a "backlash against the government" then I really don't know what you are ranting about.

I have read your statements and have to ask what YOU are ranting about? You stated, among other things:

"I was wondering when you or someone else would make this argument. You took long enough."

"It is my view that public protest and peaceful demonstration on social and political issues is what the citizens of the US are SUPPOSED to be doing in our social construct. When people are behaving as they are supposed to, that is not "unrest" in my view. Therefore, the Civil Rights movement was not "civil unrest." Even the anti-Vietnam War movement never rose to the level of "civil unrest" considering that the abuses committed against the protesters did not spark a wave of backlash against the government."

If the examples you gave above do not constitute "civil unrest" in your mind, and that term "civil unrest" means something only if there is a "backlash against the government," what the hell are YOU ranting/talking about?

If you don't think protesting and demonstrating, being shot, beaten and killed by police while you protest a condition or war or whatever do not constitute a "backlash against the government" then I really don't know what you are ranting about.

Your reaction to Mur's comments are bizarre and border on the hysterical.

What appears to be a simple difference in definitions -- you would call things "civil unrest" that Mur would not -- does not in any way indicate that Mur wants bloodshed or dismisses the significance of civil disobedience. To the contrary, Mur (I think) is saying that demostrations and civil disobedience is not "civil unrest" precisely because she identifies "civil unrest" with something more violent and/or generally undesirable.

Perhaps your grumpiness would be cured with a nice nap. :wink:

Your reaction to Mur's comments are bizarre and border on the hysterical.

What appears to be a simple difference in definitions -- you would call things "civil unrest" that Mur would not -- does not in any way indicate that Mur wants bloodshed or dismisses the significance of civil disobedience. To the contrary, Mur (I think) is saying that demostrations and civil disobedience is not "civil unrest" precisely because she identifies "civil unrest" with something more violent and/or generally undesirable.

Perhaps your grumpiness would be cured with a nice nap. :wink:
Yes, thank you, this. ^^

"Civil unrest" = a general and spreading condition of instability, disorder, anger, and potential violence throughout a society or region, and it is bad.

"Civil disobedience," "peaceful protest/demonstration" = non-violent public expressions of political opposition, normally specific to an issue, of short duration, and in no way counter to the general governmental structure, and they do not threaten the stability of society. They are good.

I like civil disobedience and peaceful protest/demonstration because I believe this is one of the appropriate ways that American citizens engage in politics.

I don't like civil unrest because it is dangerous, often violent and destabilizing.

Note to GOBAMAWIN: I do not like civil unrest because it involves violence.

Depends on how long, and how bad the recession is. As it worsens and goes on people's tempers will fray, and the slightest spark could ignite riots.

I hope to buy some type of rifle in the next few months. I'd love a Garand, but those are getting expensive, so I might go for a Mosin Nagant. Or some type of Henry Rifle.

Depends on how long, and how bad the recession is. As it worsens and goes on people's tempers will fray, and the slightest spark could ignite riots.

I hope to buy some type of rifle in the next few months. I'd love a Garand, but those are getting expensive, so I might go for a Mosin Nagant. Or some type of Henry Rifle.
How about a Red Rider 200 shot range model? I hear it comes with a compass in the stock and this thing which tells time.

Depends on how long, and how bad the recession is. As it worsens and goes on people's tempers will fray, and the slightest spark could ignite riots.

I hope to buy some type of rifle in the next few months. I'd love a Garand, but those are getting expensive, so I might go for a Mosin Nagant. Or some type of Henry Rifle.

The Henry line up isn't cheap these days, either. If you like lever action, have a look at the Marlin's, too.

Savage has a low price sub-brand called Stevens, still more expensive than a used Mosin Nagant, but less likely to have problems with springs, worn barrel rifling, etc.