If Not Violence, What’s Your Plan?

[GG]

5 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

I see — since I do history things I should be an encyclopedia. Ah yes. Many on here pretend to be by going to Google to research things before every posts. I don’t do that because I don’t need to. Also, you pathetically mischaracterized what I said to imply ignorance on my behalf. I do not respect that one but. I challenged the relivence of a hypothetical question that you asked because with my limited knowledge of American history (which is significantly greater than the average Americans) I don’t believe the perception implied in your question was accurate. 

 

But by all all means join Tom in bashing me. He likes to make things up too, I’m sure you two girls will get on fine. 

 

That's quite the take for someone claiming to have cultural superiority over others.

 

Here's a hint, if you're going to start a post calling for civil war, it would be helpful if you knew the full history of the country whose citizens you want to wipe out.

[ExiledInIllinois]

33 minutes ago, Keukasmallies said:

M y Plan:

 

Step 1.  Implement term limits for all elected officials.

 

Step 2.  Once Step 1 is in place, develop Step 2.

It's going to make things worse.

 

Be careful what You wish for.  The road to perdition is paved with good intentions.

 

We got a clown show on both sides now, we will get an even more cyclical clown show with more corruption.

 

But... People have been warned.

 

The true answer is through a more (yes I said more) conservative court... That's the push now, so go with it.

 

Can't have a Chief Justice waffling.  Say abortion.  A few years ago dissent, then just recently to the opposite way.  Laws are schizo.  Piss or get off the pot.  Stop being afraid the SCOTUS' Ivory Tower will look tarnished.  Court decisions is where we start de-polarizing society.

 

The Court will have to move one way or another.  And we are close with RBG hanging by a feminist thread.

Edited February 8, 2019 by ExiledInIllinois

[Foxx]

5 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

It's going to make things worse.

 

Be careful what You wish for.  The road to perdition is paved with good intentions.

 

We got a clown show on both sides now, we will get an even more cyclical clown show with more corruption.

 

But... People have been warned.

 

The true answer is through a more (yes I said more) conservative court... That's the push now, so go with it.

 

Can't have a Chief Justice waffling.  Say abortion.  A few years ago dissent, then just recently to the opposite way.  Laws are schizo.  Piss or get off the pot.  Stop being afraid the SCOTUS' Ivory Tower will look tarnished.  Court decisions is where we start de-polarizing society.

 

The Court will have to move one way or another.  And we are close with RBG hanging by a feminist thread.

yeah, no. the Dems have already floated the idea of increasing the bench to 19 jurists. they can't win by the rules so they have to change them.

[BringBackOrton]

22 minutes ago, GG said:

 

That's quite the take for someone claiming to have cultural superiority over others.

 

Here's a hint, if you're going to start a post calling for civil war, it would be helpful if you knew the full history of the country whose citizens you want to wipe out.

He's a grunt thinking about it like a grunt.  "Who do I shoot?"

 

38 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

 

This is thoroughly ***** idiotic. 

 

Germany's depression was caused by Weimar inflating the currency to buy foreign currency to pay reparations.  Versailles was absolutely the cause of Germany's depression in the 20s.  And the allies were not paid "in kind" - after the Dawes plan, the German economy focused on generating foreign exchange to pay reparations.  The German economy was never geared for "payment in kind," Weimar or Nazi, not when they needed foreign exchange for their considerable import needs (e.g. oil, fodder, textiles, non-ferrous metals).  

 

But it's nice of you to out-retard The_Dude in his chosen field of ignorance.  We were getting worried he'd steal your title.

 

Hilarious.

[ExiledInIllinois]

10 minutes ago, Foxx said:

yeah, no. the Dems have already floated the idea of increasing the bench to 19 jurists. they can't win by the rules so they have to change them.

That's wrong! Keep it at 9.  /smh

 

The other side does the same thing.  The GOP Snowflakes are begging The House not to do their job and ivestigate, when they investigated when they were in control.

 

Takes two to tango.

 

End games need to be pushed.  The sooner we get a conservative majority in the SCOTUS... The better.

Edited February 8, 2019 by ExiledInIllinois

[The_Dude]

48 minutes ago, GG said:

 

That's quite the take for someone claiming to have cultural superiority over others.

 

Here's a hint, if you're going to start a post calling for civil war, it would be helpful if you knew the full history of the country whose citizens you want to wipe out.

 

My claiming to not be all-knowing is “quite the take”? 

 

Further, I’m not calling for a civil war. I mean I’m laughing that I actually have to write that. 

 

Youre a guy who argues by assigning a ridoculous argument to your opponent. A lot of times that’ll work as your opponent argues a point that’s not even their own. 

27 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

He's a grunt thinking about it like a grunt.  "Who do I shoot?"

 

He’s not. But you’ve already made up your mind. 

[RochesterRob]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

 

This is thoroughly ***** idiotic. 

 

Germany's depression was caused by Weimar inflating the currency to buy foreign currency to pay reparations.  Versailles was absolutely the cause of Germany's depression in the 20s.  And the allies were not paid "in kind" - after the Dawes plan, the German economy focused on generating foreign exchange to pay reparations.  The German economy was never geared for "payment in kind," Weimar or Nazi, not when they needed foreign exchange for their considerable import needs (e.g. oil, fodder, textiles, non-ferrous metals).  

 

But it's nice of you to out-retard The_Dude in his chosen field of ignorance.  We were getting worried he'd steal your title.

 

  This is kind of how I read it, too.  Further, Germany would have been in a smaller mess if they were not counting on the spoils of war to pay the debt on just the cost of Germany buying materials and paying men for the war never mind reparations once the war was lost.  

[BringBackOrton]

3 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

My claiming to not be all-knowing is “quite the take”? 

 

Further, I’m not calling for a civil war. I mean I’m laughing that I actually have to write that. 

 

Youre a guy who argues by assigning a ridoculous argument to your opponent. A lot of times that’ll work as your opponent argues a point that’s not even their own. 

 

He’s not. But you’ve already made up your mind. 

Yeah, I read your posts and made up my mind.  Funny how that works.

[Warcodered]

10 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

My claiming to not be all-knowing is “quite the take”? 

 

Further, I’m not calling for a civil war. I mean I’m laughing that I actually have to write that. 

 

Youre a guy who argues by assigning a ridoculous argument to your opponent. A lot of times that’ll work as your opponent argues a point that’s not even their own. 

 

He’s not. But you’ve already made up your mind. 

How dare he make it sound like you've said something ridiculous.

3 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

Oh I don’t think there will be a civil war. I’m talking brown shirting polling places. Yes it’s a Nazirific idea — but some things the Nazis did worked. 

 

[Foxx]

24 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

... I’m not calling for a civil war. I mean I’m laughing that I actually have to write that. ...

actually, yes, that is exactly what you are calling for. i mean... i am actually laughing that i have to write that.

 

 do you expect the recipients to just stand by and have violence perpetuated upon them?

[GG]

15 minutes ago, Foxx said:

actually, yes, that is exactly what you are calling for. i mean... i am actually laughing that i have to write that.

 

 do you expect the recipients to just stand by and have violence perpetuated upon them?

 

I was scratching my head at that one too.  I thought I missed something obvious.

[The_Dude]

23 minutes ago, Foxx said:

actually, yes, that is exactly what you are calling for. i mean... i am actually laughing that i have to write that.

 

 do you expect the recipients to just stand by and have violence perpetuated upon them?

 

You’re a woman and so you don’t understand. 

[The_Dude]

43 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

How dare he make it sound like you've said something ridiculous.

 

 

Yes I would turn to violence before i have some savage legislate my hard earned income away. Is there something amiss with that. 

[GG]

14 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Yes I would turn to violence before i have some savage legislate my hard earned income away. Is there something amiss with that. 

But you're not advocating a civil war.   

 

Got it 

[The_Dude]

10 minutes ago, GG said:

But you're not advocating a civil war.   

 

Got it 

 

Oh my god. Are you ########? I am not advocating the establishment of a rebellious army to take and stand in the field against the United States Army. That’s not what I’m talking about. I don’t believe in fighting a fight that can’t be won. 

 

And now re-tarded is auto blocked. Cool. 

Edited February 8, 2019 by The_Dude

[GG]

Just now, The_Dude said:

 

Oh my god. Are you ########? I am not advocating the establishment of a rebellious army to take and stand in the field against the United States Army. That’s not what I’m talking about. I don’t believe in fighting a fight that can’t be won. 

Of course you don't. You'll use your party of one to use violence to protect whatever property you think was taken unjustly, without any expectation that you won't recruit others to your cause.  

[Foxx]

17 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Oh my god. Are you ########? I am not advocating the establishment of a rebellious army to take and stand in the field against the United States Army. That’s not what I’m talking about. I don’t believe in fighting a fight that can’t be won. 

 

And now re-tarded is auto blocked. Cool. 

one would think that fighting in Iraq would have taught one the value of asymmetric warfare. the coming civil war will not be fought like the wars of the past.

[The_Dude]

14 minutes ago, GG said:

Of course you don't. You'll use your party of one to use violence to protect whatever property you think was taken unjustly, without any expectation that you won't recruit others to your cause.  

 

Uh, again no. I’m about organized violence to oppress socialism. I am about that though. And that is NOT a war. 

Just now, Foxx said:

one would think that fighting in Iraq would have taught one the value of asymmetric warfare. the coming civil war will not be fought like the wars of the past.

 

its my honest opinion that a civil war in this country in the next 100 years is impossible. 

[Foxx]

9 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

... its my honest opinion that a civil war in this country in the next 100 years is impossible. 

so, you'll be going to prison for all the violence you are planning to perpetuate then. good to know. say hello to bubba

[Warcodered]

8 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Uh, again no. I’m about organized violence to oppress socialism. I am about that though. And that is NOT a war. 

 

its my honest opinion that a civil war in this country in the next 100 years is impossible. 

That sounds really complicated if only there was a shorter simpler word for that.?