From the President On Down

[Spock]

Democrat TPTB have fantasies of using the military against Americans.

Biden expressed these fantasies recently-for at least the second time.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden- ... government

>>>"I love my right-wing friends who talk about the tree of liberty is water of the blood of patriots," he said. "If you need to work about taking on the federal government, you need some F-15s. You don't need an AR-15."'<<<

Eric Swalwell

>>"Rather than address Biggs’ fear, or argue that his concerns are overblown, Swalwell reminded the dissenter that the U.S. government has nuclear warheads and that, if push comes to shove, they can be used on noncompliant citizens. The congressman responded: “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.”<<<

And recently
Gene Wu of Gene for Texas
https://twitter.com/GeneforTexas/status ... 8623171813

"It's all fun and games... until someone eats a drone fired Hellfire missile."

Personally, I think it is funny how Democrat TPTB just automatically assume that the military would be on their side and would bomb their friends and neighbors.

[silverscreenselect]

Personally, I think it is funny how Democrat TPTB just automatically assume that the military would be on their side and would bomb their friends and neighbors.

If their "friends and neighbors" were armed to the teeth as part of a "citizen's militia" and shooting at them, the military would be very quick to return fire if given the orders to do so. That's the difference between a trained military and a bunch of yahoos with AR-15s trying to demonstrate their manliness.

[Bob78164]

Personally, I think it is funny how Democrat TPTB just automatically assume that the military would be on their side and would bomb their friends and neighbors.

If their "friends and neighbors" were armed to the teeth as part of a "citizen's militia" and shooting at them, the military would be very quick to return fire if given the orders to do so. That's the difference between a trained military and a bunch of yahoos with AR-15s trying to demonstrate their manliness.

More precisely, this is a gross distortion of what they're saying. They're not encouraging armed resistance to the government. They're saying it makes no sense to claim that the Second Amendment protects citizens from a tyrannical federal government because the citizens would be hopelessly outgunned.

Which is exactly what happened in Lafayette Park, when Donny exercised the powers of a dictator to suppress dissent. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Wow. just wow. That highly placed officials would even think in those terms. And that fools like trollboy and bobby have no problem with it.

[Weyoun]

Strange comment, since you’ve openly speculated about warring against other Americans.

He’s saying that some sort of weird militia fighting the government would not go well for the militia, not that he wants to murder Americans.

The question you should be asking is, with the abundance of things we have, and the relatively few problems we have, when compared to the rest of the world, why are folks like you thinking about getting together with a bunch of other folks and arming?

That’s on you, wacko.

[flockofseagulls104]

With the abundance of things we have, and the relatively few problems we have, when compared to the rest of the world, WHY DO YOUR PARTY'S LEADERS WANT TO FUNDAMENTALY CHANGE IT TO SOCIALISM-COMMUNISM?

Nobody's talking about armed rebellion unless that continues. That will be resisted.

[Weyoun]

With the abundance of things we have, and the relatively few problems we have, when compared to the rest of the world, WHY DO YOUR PARTY'S LEADERS WANT TO FUNDAMENTALY CHANGE IT TO SOCIALISM-COMMUNISM?

Nobody's talking about armed rebellion unless that continues. That will be resisted.

Who is calling for the government to seize the means of production?

Stop using words like “communism” if you don’t know what they mean.

[flockofseagulls104]

With the abundance of things we have, and the relatively few problems we have, when compared to the rest of the world, WHY DO YOUR PARTY'S LEADERS WANT TO FUNDAMENTALY CHANGE IT TO SOCIALISM-COMMUNISM?

Nobody's talking about armed rebellion unless that continues. That will be resisted.

Who is calling for the government to seize the means of production?

Stop using words like “communism” if you don’t know what they mean.

Many of the leaders of your political party (you are NOT conservative) are avowed and committed socialists, which is one step away from communists. We were established as a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy and not a socialist state. Anyone who does not recognize that or refutes that is in violation of their oaths of office, if they even decided to take one.

[earendel]

With the abundance of things we have, and the relatively few problems we have, when compared to the rest of the world, WHY DO YOUR PARTY'S LEADERS WANT TO FUNDAMENTALY CHANGE IT TO SOCIALISM-COMMUNISM?

Nobody's talking about armed rebellion unless that continues. That will be resisted.

Who is calling for the government to seize the means of production?

Stop using words like “communism” if you don’t know what they mean.

Many of the leaders of your political party (you are NOT conservative) are avowed and committed socialists, which is one step away from communists. We were established as a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy and not a socialist state. Anyone who does not recognize that or refutes that is in violation of their oaths of office, if they even decided to take one.

I hate to get involved in this discussion, flock, but you are confusing a political term (democracy) with an economic one (socialism). It is possible for a society to be both democratic and socialist, as evidenced by most European nations.

[flockofseagulls104]

Who is calling for the government to seize the means of production?

Stop using words like “communism” if you don’t know what they mean.

Many of the leaders of your political party (you are NOT conservative) are avowed and committed socialists, which is one step away from communists. We were established as a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy and not a socialist state. Anyone who does not recognize that or refutes that is in violation of their oaths of office, if they even decided to take one.

I hate to get involved in this discussion, flock, but you are confusing a political term (democracy) with an economic one (socialism). It is possible for a society to be both democratic and socialist, as evidenced by most European nations.

I would ask you why we would aspire to be like Europe, but whatever.
History has shown us that socialism does not, and has never, worked out in the long term. You tend to run out of other people's money. So you have to force people to produce. Which leads to dictatorship. But our universities are controlled by leftists who champion socialism and communism.
Here is an opinion piece that states a viewpoint you can take with a grain of salt. But you won't see it headlined in any of the MSM. So think about it and make up your own mind.

[earendel]

Many of the leaders of your political party (you are NOT conservative) are avowed and committed socialists, which is one step away from communists. We were established as a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy and not a socialist state. Anyone who does not recognize that or refutes that is in violation of their oaths of office, if they even decided to take one.

I hate to get involved in this discussion, flock, but you are confusing a political term (democracy) with an economic one (socialism). It is possible for a society to be both democratic and socialist, as evidenced by most European nations.

I would ask you why we would aspire to be like Europe, but whatever.
History has shown us that socialism does not, and has never, worked out in the long term. You tend to run out of other people's money. So you have to force people to produce. Which leads to dictatorship. But our universities are controlled by leftists who champion socialism and communism.
Here is an opinion piece that states a viewpoint you can take with a grain of salt. But you won't see it headlined in any of the MSM. So think about it and make up your own mind.

This is why I didn't want to get involved. I wasn't saying that we should aspire to be like Europe. I merely pointed out that democracy is a political word, while socialism is an economic one, and the two are not incompatible. I did not say that socialism was desirable.

[flockofseagulls104]

I hate to get involved in this discussion, flock, but you are confusing a political term (democracy) with an economic one (socialism). It is possible for a society to be both democratic and socialist, as evidenced by most European nations.

I would ask you why we would aspire to be like Europe, but whatever.
History has shown us that socialism does not, and has never, worked out in the long term. You tend to run out of other people's money. So you have to force people to produce. Which leads to dictatorship. But our universities are controlled by leftists who champion socialism and communism.
Here is an opinion piece that states a viewpoint you can take with a grain of salt. But you won't see it headlined in any of the MSM. So think about it and make up your own mind.

This is why I didn't want to get involved. I wasn't saying that we should aspire to be like Europe. I merely pointed out that democracy is a political word, while socialism is an economic one, and the two are not incompatible. I did not say that socialism was desirable.

But I am assuming, by what you tell me, that you tend to vote for those who view socialism in a favorable light, and work to gradually establish it in this country. They are not going to overtly tell you that is their goal. But every once in a while they slip up and reveal themselves for what they are.

[earendel]

I would ask you why we would aspire to be like Europe, but whatever.
History has shown us that socialism does not, and has never, worked out in the long term. You tend to run out of other people's money. So you have to force people to produce. Which leads to dictatorship. But our universities are controlled by leftists who champion socialism and communism.
Here is an opinion piece that states a viewpoint you can take with a grain of salt. But you won't see it headlined in any of the MSM. So think about it and make up your own mind.

This is why I didn't want to get involved. I wasn't saying that we should aspire to be like Europe. I merely pointed out that democracy is a political word, while socialism is an economic one, and the two are not incompatible. I did not say that socialism was desirable.

But I am assuming, by what you tell me, that you tend to vote for those who view socialism in a favorable light, and work to gradually establish it in this country. They are not going to overtly tell you that is their goal. But every once in a while they slip up and reveal themselves for what they are.

You know what they say when you assume...

[flockofseagulls104]

This is why I didn't want to get involved. I wasn't saying that we should aspire to be like Europe. I merely pointed out that democracy is a political word, while socialism is an economic one, and the two are not incompatible. I did not say that socialism was desirable.

But I am assuming, by what you tell me, that you tend to vote for those who view socialism in a favorable light, and work to gradually establish it in this country. They are not going to overtly tell you that is their goal. But every once in a while they slip up and reveal themselves for what they are.

You know what they say when you assume...

So, you don't vote mostly democrat?

[earendel]

But I am assuming, by what you tell me, that you tend to vote for those who view socialism in a favorable light, and work to gradually establish it in this country. They are not going to overtly tell you that is their goal. But every once in a while they slip up and reveal themselves for what they are.

You know what they say when you assume...

So, you don't vote mostly democrat?

If you were to analyze my voting pattern over the years (more than 50), you'd find that I'm middle of the road. My votes go to those who I believe represent my values, be they Republican, Democrat, or other. Those values include respect for the rights of the individual; a desire to seek peace between people, groups, and nations; a willingness to work with people of differing opinions without rancor or one-upmanship; a recognition of the sins of the past and a desire to make amends; a concern for the less fortunate; and there are many others. As it happens, I feel that there are more Democrats who represent these values than there are Republicans. It didn't used to be so.

[flockofseagulls104]

You know what they say when you assume...

So, you don't vote mostly democrat?

If you were to analyze my voting pattern over the years (more than 50), you'd find that I'm middle of the road. My votes go to those who I believe represent my values, be they Republican, Democrat, or other. Those values include respect for the rights of the individual; a desire to seek peace between people, groups, and nations; a willingness to work with people of differing opinions without rancor or one-upmanship; a recognition of the sins of the past and a desire to make amends; a concern for the less fortunate; and there are many others. As it happens, I feel that there are more Democrats who represent these values than there are Republicans. It didn't used to be so.

OK, I accept that. But I wonder about that, because in the example we are talking about, you, apparently, support this immigration bill that is being pushed by the Senate. From what I can gather NO ONE has actually seen the bill in detail as yet. It is another one of those concoctions of Congress that you have to vote on before you actually see what you are voting on. Or as Nancy Pelosi says, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Do you accept this kind of governance? The people I support in the republican party do not and are pushing against it. And those are the people who get the most negative coverage in the MSM.

[earendel]

So, you don't vote mostly democrat?

If you were to analyze my voting pattern over the years (more than 50), you'd find that I'm middle of the road. My votes go to those who I believe represent my values, be they Republican, Democrat, or other. Those values include respect for the rights of the individual; a desire to seek peace between people, groups, and nations; a willingness to work with people of differing opinions without rancor or one-upmanship; a recognition of the sins of the past and a desire to make amends; a concern for the less fortunate; and there are many others. As it happens, I feel that there are more Democrats who represent these values than there are Republicans. It didn't used to be so.

OK, I accept that. But I wonder about that, because in the example we are talking about, you, apparently, support this immigration bill that is being pushed by the Senate. From what I can gather NO ONE has actually seen the bill in detail as yet. It is another one of those concoctions of Congress that you have to vote on before you actually see what you are voting on. Or as Nancy Pelosi says, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Do you accept this kind of governance? The people I support in the republican party do not and are pushing against it. And those are the people who get the most negative coverage in the MSM.

Well, now we know what was in the bill. Do I support it? Reluctantly yes. Of course, the bill was DOA in the House thanks to Trump's opposition to it (he bragged about his opposition, in fact).