Jump to content

Should Sarah Huckabee-Sanders be allowed to eat in peace?


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, joesixpack said:


Awesome.


Well, we'll see how things turn out. Let's hope your vaunted (and I think, largely hypothetical/imaginary) society of laws works out.

 

My prediction? Bloodshed in the streets, and sooner rather than later.

 

 

That's because morons like you are eager for it, largely because you have some half-assed romanticized vision of what fighting your enemies in the streets looks like.

 

People are going to die.  People you love.  Your family, friends, neighbors.

 

And not just of trauma wounds.  They'll die of starvation.  They'll die of dysentery.

 

You're talking about bringing a formal end to polite society in favor of unbridled violence against your fellow Americans.  You're talking about the interruption of the supply of food, water, and energy.

 

You're talking about the complete end of the domestic economy, with functioning businesses being replaced by roving gangs of looters and mini-anarchist protectorates.

 

You have no idea what the !@#$ you're advocating for.

 

Edit:  Or maybe you do.

 

You've now moved on to the notion that a society of laws is a fanciful delight, casually disregarded.

 

Perhaps you're just a broken sociopath.

 

 

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, row_33 said:

 

 

i have no fantasy wish for bloodshed in the streets, the US military (let alone the police) could leave a stack of lefty bodies like Cold Harbor in 10 minutes.

 

 

 

I don't wish for it either. I'd like to see a return to status qo ante of about, say, 1991.

 

But you can't ever go back, and the steps the left are taking the past two years can't be walked back.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

another Chicago would be interesting though....

 

8 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

I don't wish for it either. I'd like to see a return to status qo ante of about, say, 1991.

 

But you can't ever go back, and the steps the left are taking the past two years can't be walked back.

 

 

what steps?  this is all talking and mouthing off and fake news

 

get a history book on the Nam Era and learn about a real crisis with a tidal wave of real backlash

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

That's because morons like you are eager for it, largely because you have some half-assed romanticized vision of what fighting your enemies in the streets looks like.

 

People are going to die.  People you love.  Your family, friends, neighbors.

 

And not just of trauma wounds.  They'll die of starvation.  They'll die of dysentery.

 

You're talking about bringing a formal end to polite society in favor of unbridled violence against your fellow Americans.  You're talking about the interruption of the supply of food, water, and energy.

 

You're talking about the complete end of the domestic economy, with functioning businesses being replaced by roving gangs of looters and mini-anarchist protectorates.

 

You have no idea what the !@#$ you're advocating for.

 

 

 

You're wrong. I don't want it. I want this to actually -be- a nation of laws, versus a nation of lawlessness. The left espouses lawlessness, they espouse MASS flaunting of the laws and sovreignty of this country.

 

I want someone to do something about it before it comes to that. Also, where does this "polite society" exist? I've not seen much evidence for it.

 

 

Edited by joesixpack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

You're wrong. I don't want it.

 

I want someone to do something about it before it comes to that. Also, where does this "polite society" exist? I've not seen much evidence for it.

 

 

 

You don't seem to be doing much to pull back from the ledge, Joe.  In fact, quite the opposite, you're ratcheting up the rhetoric.

 

"Polite society" is a euphemism for "we don't shoot our neighbors over political differences", and you currently see it nearly everywhere in the country. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

You don't seem to be doing much to pull back from the ledge, Joe.  In fact, quite the opposite, you're ratcheting up the rhetoric.

 

"Polite society" is a euphemism for "we don't shoot our neighbors over political differences", and you currently see it nearly everywhere in the country. 

 

 

 

decaf might help

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

You don't seem to be doing much to pull back from the ledge, Joe.  In fact, quite the opposite, you're ratcheting up the rhetoric.

 

"Polite society" is a euphemism for "we don't shoot our neighbors over political differences", and you currently see it nearly everywhere in the country. 

 

 


OK, I'll try it your way. I'll try the fred rogers approach. Maybe we can all just thow on the cardigans and slippers and have a nice slice of bundt cake.

 

 

Edited by joesixpack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:


OK, I'll try it your way. I'll try the fred rogers approach.

 

Or you could try make sane arguments to the overwhelming majority of people who can be convinced, marginalizing the political will and resources of those you disagree with.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, row_33 said:

uh oh Tasker, now all the fault for any violence is on you !!!!

 

 

 

You know, since you're so keen on bringing up the glorious 60s as an example, you know that a lot of those protests turned violent, right?

 

But it begs a question: a good number of those "movements" were sponsored and organized by Soviet intelligence services. I wonder if the Chinese government might be behind some of our leftist agitators?

 

May be a good avenue to investigate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maxine Waters, as a citizen has a right to her hate speech. She invariably goes right to the line but hasn't crossed it yet legally. As far as decency goes, she's passed that line on numerous occasions. She should be censored in the House and marginalized that way. Joe, you are confusing indecent with illegal.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Maxine Waters, as a citizen has a right to her hate speech. She invariably goes right to the line but hasn't crossed it yet legally. As far as decency goes, she's passed that line on numerous occasions. She should be censored in the House and marginalized that way. Joe, you are confusing indecent with illegal.

 

It'll be interesting to see if her "esteemed" colleagues hold her feet to the fire in whatever way they can. I doubt it, though.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

It'll be interesting to see if her "esteemed" colleagues hold her feet to the fire in whatever way they can. I doubt it, though.

 

 

I would assume all it takes is a majority vote. Some dems may want to distance themselves from her and vote for censure too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

It'll be interesting to see if her "esteemed" colleagues hold her feet to the fire in whatever way they can. I doubt it, though.

 

 

 

They won't.  They think it's more appropriate to harass, intimidate, threaten, and even assault the opposition.

 

You know...same tactics the Nazis used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

They won't.  They think it's more appropriate to harass, intimidate, threaten, and even assault the opposition.

 

You know...same tactics the Nazis used.

Hey, there are good people on both sides, right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...