Topic: US Politics

Trump tweets support for armed Mich. COVID protesters who stormed Capitol. OK?

  • Comments: 115 |
  • Votes: 17
  • Share
Picture?type=square
Discussion started by Ron Petreanu:
With Confederate flags, swastikas and AR-15s, they were accused of intimidation but Trump called them good people who should be talked to. Agree?
Background article: ... Read more
Results in this view: Y-talk To Them 27% - Convince Me 47% - N-inappropriate 27%
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 63
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Liberty is the exercise of one's rights. Liberty is what happened in Michigan.
Picture?type=square
  • 6
Picture?type=square
  • 27
Picture?type=square
  • 2
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
Anonymous-user
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman liberty is not license with a right comes espsibility, you mean privilege a right is not a right freedom is not freedom unless equally enjoyed by all
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Of course liberty cannot be licensed by anybody. It exists as a fact of existence. All things that exist enjoy the right of expression and the right to leverage their abilities through weapons.
Picture?type=square
By Vincent D'Emidio Really Wallace? Why don't you come to my house with an AK-47 slung over your shoulder and just see what happens to you!
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Where's your house?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Vincent D'Emidio In the Bronx. Now, do you still wanna go there? A lot of Black and Latins there, NONE of them Republicans.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Isn't the Bronx in the New York Oblast? I might go there if it were first disinfected with a couple of nukes.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Vincent D'Emidio Yo mama spread "disinfectant" all over my body, before we, ah, you know!
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman can we not be so racist? yeah go out and step in the cow shit in your country paradice rube.. i hope your outhouse topples over on your momma
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman i bet his momma smells like cow pies
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Would that be why Vinni finds her so attractive? Must remind him of home in the ghetto.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman or it might be that matress tied to her back
does she cell potato chips still
i saw her on the corner yelling
lays lays!
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Nah, Vinnie wouldn't know what a mattress was being from the ghetto and "cell" chips is something he's unfamiliar with as well.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman so is your trailer a meth lab or an oxy den?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Why are you looking for one? Was yours raided?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Vincent D'Emidio ...and what would you know about the ghetto? You've never been there in your life...without a gun, that is.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Brave journalists occasionally transmit truthful reports through the lines.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Shays' Rebellion was an armed uprising in Western Massachusetts in opposition to a debt crisis among the citizenry and the state government's increased efforts to collect taxes both on individuals and their trades; the fight took place mostly in and around Springfield during 1786 and 1787.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Lincoln's march marked the end of large-scale organized resistance. Ringleaders who eluded capture fled to neighboring states, and pockets of local resistance continued. Some rebel leaders approached Lord Dorchester for assistance, the British governor of the Province of Quebec who reportedly promised assistance in the form of Mohawk warriors led by Joseph Brant.[51] Dorchester's proposal was vetoed in London, however, and no assistance came to the rebels.[52] The same day that Lincoln arrived at Petersham, the state legislature passed bills authorizing a state of martial law and giving the governor broad powers to act against the rebels. The bills also authorized state payments to reimburse Lincoln and the merchants who had funded the army, and authorized the recruitment of additional militia.[53] On February 16, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed the Disqualification Act to prevent a legislative response by rebel sympathizers. This bill forbade any acknowledged rebels from holding a variety of elected and appointed offices.[54]

Most of Lincoln's army melted away in late February as enlistments expired, and he commanded only 30 men at a base in Pittsfield by the end of the month.[55] In the meantime, some 120 rebels had regrouped in New Lebanon, New York, and they crossed the border on February 27, marching first on Stockbridge, Massachusetts, a major market town in the southwestern corner of the state. They raided the shops of merchants and the homes of merchants and local professionals. This came to the attention of Brigadier John Ashley, who mustered a force of some 80 men and caught up with the rebels in nearby Sheffield late in the day for the bloodiest encounter of the rebellion: 30 rebels were wounded (one mortally), at least one government soldier was killed, and many were wounded.[56] Ashley was further reinforced after the encounter, and he reported taking 150 prisoners.[57]
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Four thousand people signed confessions acknowledging participation in the events of the rebellion in exchange for amnesty. Several hundred participants were eventually indicted on charges relating to the rebellion, but most of these were pardoned under a general amnesty that only excluded a few ringleaders. Eighteen men were convicted and sentenced to death, but most of these were overturned on appeal, pardoned, or had the sentences commuted. John Bly and Charles Rose, however, were hanged on December 6, 1787.[58] They were also accused of common-law crime, as both were looters.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Shays was pardoned in 1788 and he returned to Massachusetts from hiding in the Vermont woods.[59] He was vilified by the Boston press, who painted him as an archetypal anarchist opposed to the government.[60] He later moved to the Conesus, New York area where he died poor and obscure in 1825
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman The crushing of the rebellion and the harsh terms of reconciliation imposed by the Disqualification Act all worked against Governor Bowdoin politically. He received few votes from the rural parts of the state and was trounced by John Hancock in the gubernatorial election of 1787.[61] The military victory was tempered by tax changes in subsequent years. The legislature cut taxes and placed a moratorium on debts and also refocused state spending away from interest payments, resulting in a 30-percent decline in the value of Massachusetts securities as those payments fell in arrears.[62]
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman Vermont was an unrecognized independent republic that had been seeking independent statehood from New York's claims to the territory. It became an unexpected beneficiary of the rebellion due to sheltering the rebel ringleaders. Alexander Hamilton broke from other New Yorkers, including major landowners with claims on Vermont territory, calling for the state to recognize and support Vermont's bid for admission to the union. He cited Vermont's de facto independence and its ability to cause trouble by providing support to the discontented from neighboring states, and he introduced legislation that broke the impasse between New York and Vermont. Vermonters responded favorably to the overture, publicly pushing Eli Parsons and Luke Day out of the state (but quietly continuing to support others).[citation needed] Vermont became the fourteenth state after negotiations with New York and the passage of the new constitution.[63]
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman So you see, the rebels ultimately won and their victory is called Vermont. This reminds me a bit of Amon Bundy's rebellion that forced Obama's BLM off his ranch with the assistance of the armed militia.
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman and vermot is run by socialists so i'm happy too
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Somehow I don't think you'd be too happy with Vermont.

Vermont is one of eight states along with Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, West Virginia, and Wyoming in the Union to allow any adult to carry a concealed firearm without any sort of permit.

The state is one of three in the nation that does not require political candidates to disclose personal financial information.

Historically, Vermont was considered one of the most reliably Republican states in the country in terms of national elections. From 1856 to 1988, Vermont voted Democratic only once, in Lyndon B. Johnson's landslide victory of 1964 against Barry M. Goldwater. It was also one of only two states—the other being Maine—where Franklin D. Roosevelt was completely shut out in all four of his presidential bids. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Republican presidential candidates frequently won the state with over 70 percent of the vote.

Upon his entry into office with the death of his predecessor, Republican Richard A. Snelling in 1991, Governor Howard Dean faced a national economic recession and a $60 million state budget deficit. Facing some opposition in his own Democratic Party, he advocated for and received from the legislature a balanced budget.[62] This set a precedent of fiscal restraint, which has continued in Vermont through 2011. In 1999, five moderate Democratic legislators, called "Blue Dogs", joined with Republicans to pass Democratic, but fiscally conservative, governor Howard Dean's plans for an income tax cut
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman perhaps canada then they are about to make handguns and semi automatic rifles illegal period and yo carry there? its felony and you go to jail for a long time, so maybe quebec, i prefer the company of my own people, but tobe honest are guns a problem in vermont? in rual placexs like alaska or montana population density is so low maybe it isnt a rpoblem , to alow people to carry on like that in a na urbanreas is irrational bordering on insanity, american obsession with gun borders on insanity, like some adolescent child with a mental problem
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman The most liberal state in the country is Massachusetts, where the equally progressive city of Boston is located. Next is Hawaii, followed by Vermont, Washington, New York, New Hampshire, California, Maryland, New Jersey, and Maine. This index of how liberal a state is is based on how many liberals there are, as compared to conservatives.
if all the armed people are liberals i will be honest then i dont mind guns so much, what ii mend is the idea of my enemy being armed and me not, and i can own gunsfor heatlh reasons , my hands are so arthritic now i can no longer hold one
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman i have a friend who livesn vermenot in some ways he is more left wing then me and he loves vermont, if peole have guns they are civil with them, if guns arent a problem then they arent a problem, but most places they are
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Weapons are NEVER a problem. People, on the other hand, are very often the source of problems. As you pointed out, it's places with an overabundance of people, like New York City, that become Democrat ghettos with plagues of excessive taxation, socialism and disease.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Vincent D'Emidio "Somehow I don't think you'd be too happy with Vermont"

On the contrary...I have nothing against guns, I'm a gun owner. My concern is over just who happens to have the gun in his hands. You know, and I know that there are certain people who should never own a gun...they don't know how to control themselves. Vermont allows the use of God's gift to mankind, Herb. Well, that's good enough for me!
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Vincent D'Emidio Yeah, Bundy was lucky that it wasn't the Bronx. We would've squashed those "militiamen" like the insects that they are!
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Ranchers don't graze their livestock in the Bronx, yet, but the way that libtard ghetto is being depopulated by corona virus there's always the hope it can one day be put to a productive use like grazing land.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Vincent D'Emidio Those, ahem, "libtards" are sick and tired of you people's nonsense and are ready to do what is necessary, including INVADING your areas because it's time to show you who's country it really is! You see, they aren't afraid of you and they will PROVE it to you by taking what you have AWAY from you...even your existence!
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman I hope they try soon. They're overdue for a good culling.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Vincent D'Emidio Why do you respond like a little tough guy? Considering the FACT that White folks will be the M-I-N-O-R-I-T-Y in a few years, there's no way in the world that your kind beats MY kind. Since you people (you White Evangelicals) will really be in the minority soon, don't you think that you should show more respect to those who can CRUSH you? And CRUSH you people we will! We have the GHETTO on our side, and since your kind is AFRAID to walk through our areas, and we AIN'T SCARED to go pillaging through YOUR areas, we already won! Oh, and by the way, DO NOT count God to be on your side, He's already on OURS!!! God abandoned you people when you sold your souls to the devil as you endorsed "president" Chump.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Ghetto residents appear to be doing a good job of culling themselves in their own ghettos.
As for gods, they're on the side of the best armed.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Vincent D'Emidio Why don't you visit the ghetto -- if you can summon the courage -- and learn what the term "Gun country" really means? We'll be "culling" racist ANIMALS!!!
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Why would ANYbody, except maybe an anthropologist doing research or an exterminator in a professional capacity, want to visit any ghetto?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Vincent D'Emidio Well, I'll tell you why I would go. for one thing, that's where I came from, so I'll be going back to visit my old haunts. You see, even though I moved out of the ghetto many years ago, I never felt that I was "above" anybody down there. So, when I go visit my old block, I go there to reminisce with old friends, maybe I'll smoke a joint or two...maybe I'll play some basketball or handball...maybe I'll rap to a couple of sexy ladies...A lot of things that you may, or may not, understand.

The ghetto was home to me, and in some ways, it still is! So, I have no fears about the area, only good memories.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman shame onm you studies show that strict gun laws reduce dramatically the number of guns in ghettos you can look at the uk they just stab each other and stabbing are easier to survive by about a measure of 10
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By William Dykeman i lived in canada they had slums but they werent as bad and there were like zero guns only country people have guns, i've lived in nations with strict gun laws and i would say in most other waysthe yare just as free or more so and safer, guns just poolute a society they are like drugs the more of either more more miserty you have
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Well it was never home to me so I don't have any reason to go there and if it's not in the free world, every reason to stay away.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman One either has freedom or one does not. If government is in control of the people, the people are not in control of the government.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Vincent D'Emidio What about curtailment of rights from a right-wing government perspective? How come that never bothers you? You're so worried about what a bunch of interracial, multicultural, pot-smoking, party people are gonna do to take away your rights! But, when they put pot-smokers in jail, or raid Gay clubs and arrest people on trumped-up charges, or bust prostitutes for victimless crimes, or take couple's children away from them because they have a different lifestyle from so-called "christians", you don't bat an eye!

According to those assorted bible-bangers and the NRA (yes, the NRA!), guys like you are all VICTIMS, with a Capital "V", and guys like me are the sinners, the destroyers!
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman You don't seem to understand the Libertarian point of view. Perhaps you should do some reading. https://www.lp.org/platform/
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Bill Sands liberty to do anything ends when your act harms other beings
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Bill Sands “A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman Displacement of less successful organisms by more successful organisms, often with great harm to the less successful, is the eternal lesson of reality both in prehistory and history. Thus cro-magnon displaced neanderthals and people with railroads and Gatling Guns displaced aboriginal nomads that traveled the Great Plains hunting bison.

A "right" that is not a reality of nature is a fantasy.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Bill Sands there are no rights in nature its the law of the jungle and you pretty much proved my point with your words suvival of the fittest crap , thats what hitler spewed so thanks for proving you r self to be a nazi , you said it you cant take it back and it is here for everyomne to see! and thank you for that, i win
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Bill Sands there are no rights in nature you bescially agreed when you said likfe is abasically suvival of the fitest..so what you want to kill all the old people and cri[pples now mr nazi? i that your idea of natural rights? there are no rights in natue there is only the rule of law, stopng you from killing everyone who is weaker or vulnerable we call that civilization
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Bill Sands law of nature survival of the fittest? doesn't sound like you are talking about rights you are talking like a nazi
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman The reality of nature as the source and limitation of all rights is obvious for all but reality deniers to see. Is it Nazism that prevented everyone from having a right to 20/20 vision until an understanding of the natural laws of physics made corrective lenses possible? Simply mumbling law like magic incantations does nothing otherwise all pain and misery could just be legislated away and Stalin and Lenin would be alive today having legislatively created a "right" to eternal life - though probably for themselves only.

The Nazis were among the reality deniers who believed, like liberals, that the "Triumph of the Will" would make all things possible without regard to natural reality. Denial of natural reality has also been the failing of Communism's goals from supersonic transports to orbiting solar reflectors intended to extend the growing season of Siberia.

Only those who accept and understand the laws of natural reality can successfully use those laws to change reality. Desire alone is worthless.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Bill Sands there are no laws in nature, men make laws, men create ideas like all men are created equal or do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you, or from each according to ability to each according to need, or give all your money to the poor and come and follow gods hippy kid around, you cant serve to masters, you wont find that in nature those are ideas that evolved , like civilization evolves
you arent an island you are a grain of sand on a beach
you have to lear nto live with others
or perish
this is your final warning
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman The laws of nature are the reality that humanity can only discover, not create, and if humanity is wise, use to its advantage. In comparason to the laws of nature, the illusions of humanity are but dust in the wind.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Bill Sands the laws of anture are the laws of the jungle for 10 000 years with relgion and philosophy man has tried to rise above the animals with mixed results, even animals arent as cruel as we often are
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Wallace Freeman When human ideas are not grounded in the reality of nature they are baseless and will collapse. The misery and cruelty of humanity have their source in the ungrounded, unnatural ideas that humans think should be true and real but aren't. Bullfrogs should have wings so they won't bump their a$$es on the ground, but they don't. Not being human however, bullfrogs have not declared wings their right and have thus saved themselves and others a lot of misery.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago