Civil War

[Mr VJP]

Liberals do it to ban things they want banned.  They want to make anything they don't like go away.  BTW, they don't like people who don't agree with them.  Smellin' my breeze people?

 

This is why people who cherish the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution cannot stand Leftist Progressive Liberals.  Nothing personal.  Just natural.

 

 

Edited January 14, 2016 by Mr VJP

[ants]

"Thats racist"…Thats "Bigoted".." Thats homophobic".." Thats Islamaphobic"…"thats sexist"….Because WE SAY IT IS!!!   AND WE ARE SMARTER THAN YOU!!!    LOL!! 

 

They are so impressed with themselves !!…. LOL!!

[philoshop]

The one thing that's always bothered me about "political correctness" is that it does not represent my views.

I tend to say what I mean, and if someone takes it as an offense that's their problem.

[ants]

The one thing that's always bothered me about "political correctness" is that it does not represent my views.

I tend to say what I mean, and if someone takes it as an offense that's their problem.

 

But, your "views" are wrong……..according to a lot of liberals. What you think and what you believe has to match what they think and believe or you are a …………….fill in the blank. ……..

 

A lot of liberals just can not get over themselves….Its the way it is.

[Mr VJP]

Partisanship is a good thing for the country:

 

David Harsanyi: "My favorite part of Tuesday's speech was the president's assertion that the Founding Fathers wanted us to argue about 'the meaning of liberty.' This was the only time Obama mentioned the word 'liberty' in his speech, and when he spoke about 'freedom,' it was never in the context of the Constitution. Now, I wouldn't claim to know exactly what the founders desired for us, beyond mentioning that they codified many ideas of the Enlightenment and specifically wrote them down for us to follow, sometimes even numbering them so we would understand. Although they certainly debated some of these notions, it is implausible to believe that any Founding Father would be OK with forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for someone else's birth control or forcing Americans to report to a bureaucracy such as the IRS before engaging in political speech. Progressives want to redefine freedom as a form of dependency and common good, not argue about its traditional contours. So yes, some people are suspicious of 'change.' ... Anyone who believes [Obama] has a monopoly over the 'future' deserves the suspicion and rancor that come with politics. It's not to say that blind partisanship or uniformity is productive or that Republicans have answers. But partisanship — as in prejudice toward a particular cause — allows us to avoid destructive national political 'unity.' So as rancorous as partisanship is, it's far less destructive than Obama's political ideal."

 

However, when an agenda is being forced upon the masses, dissent cannot be tolerated.

[Mr VJP]

"All that is necessary to understand the rabid efforts to disarm law-abiding American citizen gun owners is to realize that liberal gun control efforts have nothing to do with child safety, nothing to do with public safety, nothing to do with safety of anybody, or anything of the kind. Liberal gun control is about one thing, and one thing only. That one thing is the liberal/socialist's need to disarm those who would resist, thus impede, their ability to implement the socialist, centralized, big government, cradle to grave, control of people, who, in the liberal elite's opinion, are not smart enough to make the important decisions necessary to take care of themselves. The only thing preventing Obama (and ilk), from imposing their vision of the socialist, sunshine, unicorn, and rainbow utopia upon America is that they have been unable to disarm 150-200 million Americans of some many more millions of firearms. Additionally, neither have these socialist elites been successful at dissuading these 150-200 million law-abiding, citizen, firearm owning citizens from standing/fighting/dying for the principles in which they believe."

 

Melvin R. Blann III

 

[WingNut]

Are we talking Civil War or a Revolution? 

[chas0218]

Are we talking Civil War or a Revolution? 

 

I think Revolution...

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Probably be a little of both.

[philoshop]

I'd need a more specific description of what the "Civil War" might entail with regard to who's fighting whom.

The "Revolution" has been going on for a few decades.

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Right vs left.

[Mr VJP]

Right vs Left would also be Right vs The Government under this administration

[Trial153]

When you look at the build up of quasi police, bureaucratic security forces you have to wonder if the government isn't worried about military neutrality in a situation like this.

[chas0218]

When you look at the build up of quasi police, bureaucratic security forces you have to wonder if the government isn't worried about military neutrality in a situation like this.

My father just retired army after 35 years of service and he said his battle buddy's would be handing out ammo to the civilians if it got that bad. Under any order he said they would not fire on their own people no matter what the situation.

[Huntscreek]

My father just retired army after 35 years of service and he said his battle buddy's would be handing out ammo to the civilians if it got that bad. Under any order he said they would not fire on their own people no matter what the situation.

I would agree 100%. Tell your dad thank you for 35yrs of sevice.

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

[Huntscreek]

If its a revolution I be on the side of the oppressed.

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk