-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is This The New Normal?
- Thread starter GoldenBoy89
- Start date
You oppose the violence and then go on to say the Constitution supports armed resistance. So which is it and who gets to decide?
Obviously the founders did support violence against a tyrannical state. And would do so again. But rhe citizenry is not under a tyrannical state. Merely enforcing a law supported by the Costitution and ruled constitutional does NOT equal tyranny. If I failed to pay my taxes and the government seized all my assets would I have a right to bear arms against the tyrannical governement?
The governement is dealing with illegals who are not citizens of this country. Yet its the citizens and illegals together who are attacking, and being violent against governement agents who are enforcing laws that arw supported as Constitutional. There is no reason to attack them as this is a VERY limited scope of governement action aimed not at citizens themselves but at those who should not be here in the first place.
Upvote
0
I agree, and ICE is acting within the bounds of lawful government. And the constitution does not allow for citizens to engage in unlawful conduct against a lawful government.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Hood was a loser.
- Mar 11, 2017
- 21,553
- 16,259
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
The second amendment is for ensuring that rebellions can be put down by the regulated militia.
Upvote
0
A2SG
Gumby
- Jun 17, 2008
- 9,722
- 3,760
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
According to your source: "[Former House sergeant-at-arms Paul] Irving told [Capitol Police Chief Steven] Sund ahead of the riot that he did not want National Guard troops at the Capitol on Jan. 6 because of bad "optics," the Washington Post and the New York Times reported."
No mention of Speaker Pelosi, or what she said or decided.
But you said nothing about anything she said or decided, nor anything to indicate any role she played in the decision. You accused her based on an assumption, not actual facts.
You'll find I don't place much credence in baseless assumptions. Call it a quirk.
I also noticed your lack of details on whoever those aides are who you seem to think will be charged with treason. Any actual information on them, or is that nothing more than baseless assumptions as well?
-- A2SG, were I a betting man, I know where I'd put my money....
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2004
- 70,726
- 7,829
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
You can spin it whatever way you want, but the sergeant-at-arms reports to the Speaker of the House and would never make that decision on his own. SHE is the one who was concerned with optics since SHE was the one who had started supporting the defund the police movement in late 2020.
Thank goodness by 2022 she moved away from it since we saw how well that worked out when they started actually changing policies and cutting down on cops to put social workers on the front lines. Like nobody could see how bad that would turn out. J/K Everyone on the right knew.
Upvote
0
DaisyDay
I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
- Jan 7, 2003
- 41,551
- 19,675
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Unitarian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Major irony alert!!
It is his job. He, not she, is a part of the Capitol Police Board.
Ridiculous - your argument doesn't track. Someone - not her - made a comment about "optics" but you say it's her concern because she has an opinion about something else entirely? Um, no.
The fact is that during the riot, Speaker Pelosi and Ranking Member Schumer both pleaded for them which Trump refused for HOURS. Trump, who had the actual authority refused. Saying he offered means nothing since he refused to deploy them when actually requested during a riot.
Upvote
0
A2SG
Gumby
- Jun 17, 2008
- 9,722
- 3,760
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I'm not spinning anything, just trying to get to the facts, and leave baseless assumptions where they belong.
Which still says nothing about what role she played on January 6th, if any.
-- A2SG, remember what I said about baseless assumptions....
Upvote
0
NxNW
Well-Known Member
Once could also point out slavery was defended by many Christians, as memorialized in Huck Finn.
One could also point it that the KKK believed themselves to be a Christian organization.
They were so eager to free the slaves, that Mississippi ratified the 13th Amendment in 2013!
Because the right loves to whitewash history. Jan6 is another great example.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2004
- 70,726
- 7,829
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
All states aren’t required to ratify an amendment for it to become part of the Constitution, and, thus, law of the land. You pointing it out doesn’t change anything.
And last I knew, Mississippi was part of the south, the second state to secede from the union. And you are questioning why they didn’t ratify the 13th Amendment???
The only people whitewashing anything are those people who pick and choose what they want to push as the “accepted” narrative who then suppress anything that points to a different reality and then tries to gaslight everyone into not believing what their eyes are seeing, and when that doesn’t work, to sic the DoJ on people to silence them. You know what I’m saying, straight out of the leftists playbook, time after time.
Upvote
0
FAITH-IN-HIM
Well-Known Member
A factual account of the roles played by Democrats and conservatives regarding the issue of American slavery.
However, it is irrelevant in current politics.
Until 1964, the Democratic Party in the United States was generally associated with more conservative positions. Historically, Democrats opposed policies such as the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage, and much of their support was based in the Southern states—regions now often referred to as "red" or conservative. Conversely, until 1964, the Republican Party was recognized for its progressive and liberal stances; Republicans were prominent advocates for abolition, women's voting rights, civil rights, and opposition to segregation, with strong representation in what are now considered "blue" states.
The political landscape shifted significantly after Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat with conservative views, signed the Civil Rights Act. Over time, many individuals in the South who had identified as Democrats transitioned to the Republican Party, while those in New England, previously Republicans known for their progressive and elite backgrounds, became members of the Democratic Party.
Upvote
0
DaisyDay
I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
- Jan 7, 2003
- 41,551
- 19,675
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Unitarian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
They did ratify the 13th Amendment - didn’t you read the post you quoted???
It’s the current DOJ that is trying to threaten people into silence.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2004
- 70,726
- 7,829
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
My family has been Republican since I can remember, probably around the early 60s. There wasn’t a progressive bone in them. And Kennedy was progressive and embraced the civil rights movement, and the only reason LBJ signed the civil rights bill was because Kennedy was so keen on it, not because he had a soft spot for blacks, because he was the most racist president in modern terms. He knew that would keep the blacks coming back to vote for them for years. He was counting on 200 years, though it’s only been about 50 and they are starting to turn away because they see how those failed policies have not helped them move forward.
So, like I said, if there was an ideological switch, it has reverted. The left is STILL trying to keep the blacks under their thumb. They can’t through chattel slavery, but they can through economic slavery.
Upvote
0
FAITH-IN-HIM
Well-Known Member
I am not acquainted with you or your family, so I will accept your statements at face value. Historically, U.S. political parties have experienced significant shifts; for example, prior to the Civil Rights Acts, many individuals who identified as Democrats later became Republicans, and vice versa. Progressive movements have frequently supported minority rights, from the Civil War and women's suffrage to the civil rights movement and contemporary issues such as gender identity, same-sex marriage, and immigration. Conversely, conservative groups in America have often been associated with efforts to maintain the status quo and uphold traditional interpretations of American life, including opposition to certain civil and women's rights advancements.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2004
- 70,726
- 7,829
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
There doesn’t seem to be a consensus of what they want to be called, as a group, but in the 70s and 80s, that was what they wanted to be called. And most of us called them that and it was OK. So, sorry if my age is showing and if you were offended.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
