Trump announces Brett Kavanaugh as his 2nd SCOTUS nominee.

[∞∞∞]

^To be fair, I can see how that's unclear.^

Uncomfortable is a better word than scared. The point I'm making is that conservatives are fearful of change - so your lack of comfort would be a sign that America is changing for the best.

I don't want you to be fearful in any physical sense.

[89Hen]

The point I'm making is that conservatives are fearful of change

[93henfan]

If Trip was referencing me on violence, I believe that if liberals begin trying to chip away at the Bill of Rights and cannot be stopped peacefully, then yes, by all means violence should be employed to prevent tyranny. That’s why the Second Amendment was written.

[Ibanez]

conservatives are fearful of change - .

Do you see the irony in this statement?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[∞∞∞]

conservatives are fearful of change - .

Do you see the irony in this statement?

I see it and your implication is correct, I'm fearful of certain changes.

I need to be more accurate about my wording: Conservatives are fearful of progress.

[89Hen]

Do you see the irony in this statement?

I see it and your implication is correct, I'm fearful of certain changes.

I need to be more accurate about my wording: Conservatives are fearful of progress.

You're making things worse.

[Ibanez]

Progress meaning the DNCs will over those of others?


That doesn’t sound Democratic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[∞∞∞]

Progress meaning the DNCs will over those of others?


That doesn’t sound Democratic.

The DNC with all its flaws is the best representation of progressive values - and I don't even think they're that progressive...moderates at best. But the GOP is so far right at this point that they're not even on a playing field anymore. It's essentially a new party since Trump grabbed them by the pussy.

[AZGrizFan]

When I say GOP members, I mean the McConnells and Gorsuchs and Sessions of the world...the politicos who are directly contributing to the chipping away of sacred institutions, the road blocks to progress, and the gas-lighting of the American population.

What about common people who support the above named people...do you want them treated the same way???

He wants 89 to feel scared in America. What do you think?

[AZGrizFan]

What about common people who support the above named people...do you want them treated the same way???

No, they're already going to be uncomfortable enough as the America they love changes around them. There's no reason to pile on. But as you've seen in this thread and others, there's people foaming at the mouth for violence and take joy in the prospect of it...and it isn't me.

You've promoted violence throughout this thread. And many others. Don't backpedal off that pedestal NOW, bitch.

[AZGrizFan]

If Trip was referencing me on violence, I believe that if liberals begin trying to chip away at the Bill of Rights and cannot be stopped peacefully, then yes, by all means violence should be employed to prevent tyranny. That’s why the Second Amendment was written.

[∞∞∞]

If Trip was referencing me on violence, I believe that if liberals begin trying to chip away at the Bill of Rights and cannot be stopped peacefully, then yes, by all means violence should be employed to prevent tyranny. That’s why the Second Amendment was written.

Cool, so you're on record for wanting to kill Americans because the majority want to propel the US into the 21st century while a minority desperately holds on to a 250-year old doctrine written by rich white men who barely represent the values of today's changing societies and demographics.

I guess the People - present and future - must always be governed by the past...or die.

You're not defending tyranny at all; you are the tyranny.

The real answer to this predicament is a split of the nation, not bloodshed.

[89Hen]

No, they're already going to be uncomfortable enough as the America they love changes around them. There's no reason to pile on. But as you've seen in this thread and others, there's people foaming at the mouth for violence and take joy in the prospect of it...and it isn't me.

You've promoted violence throughout this thread. And many others. Don't backpedal off that pedestal NOW, bitch.

He is the same guy who got into a fight with 12 year olds at a mall IIRC. He seems to seek out violence.

[∞∞∞]

You've promoted violence throughout this thread. And many others. Don't backpedal off that pedestal NOW, bitch.

He is the same guy who got into a fight with 12 year olds at a mall IIRC. He seems to seek out violence.

I don't know what I'm walking into, but...what? (I'm sure you have some quote ready).

[93henfan]

Cool, so you're on record for wanting to kill Americans because the majority want to propel the US into the 21st century while a minority desperately holds on to a 250-year old doctrine written by rich white men who barely represent the values of today's changing societies and demographics.

I guess the People - present and future - must always be governed by the past...or die.

You're not defending tyranny at all; you are the tyranny.

The real answer to this predicament is a split of the nation, not bloodshed.

I’ll stay on the side that keeps the Constitution and kill everyone I can in the other one.

[kalm]

I see it and your implication is correct, I'm fearful of certain changes.

I need to be more accurate about my wording: Conservatives are fearful of progress.

You're making things worse.

“A conservative is someone who stands athwart history yelling “stop!”

- William F Buckley Jr.

[89Hen]

"I'm too drunk to taste this chicken."

- Col. Sanders

[Ibanez]

Cool, so you're on record for wanting to kill Americans because the majority want to propel the US into the 21st century while a minority desperately holds on to a 250-year old doctrine written by rich white men who barely represent the values of today's changing societies and demographics.

I guess the People - present and future - must always be governed by the past...or die.

You're not defending tyranny at all; you are the tyranny.

The real answer to this predicament is a split of the nation, not bloodshed.

Majority of governorships, statehouses, congress and the White House are GOP..not sure they are the minority here


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[∞∞∞]

I’ll stay on the side that keeps the Constitution and kill everyone I can in the other one.

The sensible response to major ideological differences is to split a nation, not pursue bloodshed. It would be a major moment in modern history, but splitting nations is far from unprecedented and there's no reason the United States couldn't go on that that path.

We can still work together as a powerful North American federation with a common currency and close military alliances. The only difference would be our different federal governments.

[CAA Flagship]

Cool, so you're on record for wanting to kill Americans because the majority want to propel the US into the 21st century while a minority desperately holds on to a 250-year old doctrine written by rich white men who barely represent the values of today's changing societies and demographics.

How and why are today's demographics changing?

[kalm]

"I'm too drunk to taste this chicken."

- Col. Sanders

That may have been your quickest surrender ever!

[AZGrizFan]

Do you see the irony in this statement?

I see it and your implication is correct, I'm fearful of certain changes.

I need to be more accurate about my wording: Conservatives are fearful of progress.

Progress is in the eye of the beholder. Can you admit that?

[AZGrizFan]

Cool, so you're on record for wanting to kill Americans because the majority want to propel the US into the 21st century while a minority desperately holds on to a 250-year old doctrine written by rich white men who barely represent the values of today's changing societies and demographics.

I guess the People - present and future - must always be governed by the past...or die.

You're not defending tyranny at all; you are the tyranny.

The real answer to this predicament is a split of the nation, not bloodshed.

No, first of all it's nowhere NEAR a "majority", and secondly, the tyranny is in attempting to overthrow this form of government and our constitution and make us Venezuela. THAT I will defend with violence. I took an oath when I was commissioned an officer in the US Navy:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I take that oath very seriously. And you and your ilk are dangerously close to straying into "domestic enemy" territory.

[∞∞∞]

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

So you take an oath that's not in the Constitution to defend the Constitution? I can make up oaths too.

George Washington would laugh his ass off at your thinking, or shake his head. Either way, the first phrase he and his forward buddies declared to King George:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the Earth...

[Winterborn]

I’ll stay on the side that keeps the Constitution and kill everyone I can in the other one.

The sensible response to major ideological differences is to split a nation, not pursue bloodshed. It would be a major moment in modern history, but splitting nations is far from unprecedented and there's no reason the United States couldn't go on that that path.

We can still work together as a powerful North American federation with a common currency and close military alliances. The only difference would be our different federal governments.

Looks like one side is going to have to do some more compromising than the other.