Jump to content

Amy Coney Barrett (ACB) is COOL as a CUCUMBER !! She is going to SAIL thru... SHE si so QUALIFIED, so SMOOTH, and so COMPETENT... it's SCARY !!


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Scout said:

This isn't an issue any more.  

If they are disenfranchised by EQUALITY, then they are scum and should be

kicked out of the Union.  :)  

Disenfranchised by population you idiot.

 

I love your leftist "my way or the highway" attitude too.

 

It's so inclusive.

 

I told you it would go right over your head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 546
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Translation = I don’t have any proof of my assertions. Look them up for me and see if you can prove me right. If you can’t prove me right, maybe it’ll take so long you’ll forget I posted this crap...

An ANNOYING  VOICE?,  NANCY Pelosi... now THERE'S an ANNOYING VOICE !!

Amy klobachar is just pissed she is not being nominated for the Supreme Court what a bitch 

56 minutes ago, kfools said:

 

Let's hear it.

True.

Also true.

The right never went that far.

The right never went that far.

Based on what?

What happened to him?

True.

I fear this is all true friend.

On my friend. I don't now if he is still alive. After being released from prison, he resigned from the Communist Party, as many people were doing at that time, not because of the Smith Act persecutions, but because of two events that took place in 1956: Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" to the  20th Congress of the CPSU which denounced Stalin [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Cult_of_Personality_and_Its_Consequences ]  -- it was distributed to the Communist Party Central Committees of the East European satellite statees -- still supposed to be secret -- but one of them was a CIA agent, and it got out to the world. This caused great consternation in the CP's around the world -- people who had spent 20 or 30 years of their lives, often under dangerous circumstances, believing that everything said about Stalin and the USSR was a capitalist lie -- were devastated.  And then... a few months later .. came the Hungarian Revolution, a popular anti-Communist uprising, drowned in blood by the Russians. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956].  

 

We must remember that Communists were not evil children of Satan. Many, among the rank and file especially, were very decent people, who thought they were fighting for a better world. They were terribly misguided, of course. And when the truth was presented to them from a source they could not question -- what the lawyers call "testimony against interest" -- they left the Party in droves.  My friend was one of them.  He later joined the Trotskyists and stayed there for a few years, but by the late 60s had become more or less a conventional liberal. I don't know what he would think about the current degeneration of the non-Communist Left on the civil liberties issue.  (The Communist Left in all its manifestations, has always been against civil liberties.)

 

On how far the Right went: Well, in some ways you're right. The issues of the day were basically perceived loyalty to America. The non-Communist Left was slightly less nationalistic than the Right, but ... if you were a liberal, had not signed any Communist petitions fitteen years earlier, would sign a loyalty oath ... you could keep your job.  (There was some informal persecution of liberals, for sure. Where I grew up, in Houston, Texas, in the 1950s, if you wrote a letter to the editor favoring school integration, and signed your real name, and if certain Rightwingers could find your name in the phone book -- you would be rung up every fifteen minutes, around the clock ... they had a group of people organized for that: one would ring at midnight, another at 12.15, etc.  My parents had the engine of their car ruined when someone dropped woodscrews into the gas tank -- they had an anti war sticker on the car.  )

 

At that time, the 'dissidents' -- the Communists and their sympathyzers -- were a tiny minority, extremely isolated. The overwhelming majority of Americans, liberals and conservatives alike, rejected them.  Liberals in Congress, including the furthest-left one, like Hubert Humphrey, had no problem in voting to outright outlaw the CP. (In fact, Humphrey actually sponsored the bill in the Senate. It passed unanimously, but is so obviously so unConstitutional that it has never been enforced.)

 

Then ... the academy, the arts, the journalism profession -- the "cultural apparatus" -- was largely tolerant of liberals and non-CP lefties.  People like C. Wright Mills could continue to teach.  Now, the big corporations, the universities, etc. bow to the PC Left, and purge their conservatives. 

 

However, we're about half the population.  So we won't  -- we can't -- just keep our heads down. This means ongoing hatefilled struggle.  The recent killings we have seen as AntiFa and BurnLootMurder try to destroy the country are just a precursor of what may be coming.

 

As for violence: several CP leaders were violently attacked in prison, to which they had been sent by the Smith Act in 1949.  One of them, Bob Thompson, probably died early because of those injuries. His biography is interesting: [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Thompson  ]

 

But the best known example of rightwing violence was the concert(s) at Peekskill, New York. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peekskill_riots  ] The Wiki article is laughably biased, by the way, obviously written by a hard-core CP sympathyzer. The riots were not "anti-Semitic" or "anti African American", but anti-Communist.  The CP always tried to claim that attacks on it were motivated by racism and anti-Semitism, instead of hatred of them because they were the advance guard of the Red Army.

 

Anyway, effectively, the Left and the Right have switched sides on this issue.  It's going to be interesting to see what these people do when they have the power, as I fear they will after 3 November.  We will need to learn the techniques of operating in an authoritarian society, and plan to rectify things as the country unravels under their rule  (Think San Francisco writ large.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Doug1943 said:

On my friend. I don't now if he is still alive. After being released from prison, he resigned from the Communist Party, as many people were doing at that time, not because of the Smith Act persecutions, but because of two events that took place in 1956: Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" to the  20th Congress of the CPSU which denounced Stalin [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Cult_of_Personality_and_Its_Consequences ]  -- it was distributed to the Communist Party Central Committees of the East European satellite statees -- still supposed to be secret -- but one of them was a CIA agent, and it got out to the world. This caused great consternation in the CP's around the world -- people who had spent 20 or 30 years of their lives, often under dangerous circumstances, believing that everything said about Stalin and the USSR was a capitalist lie -- were devastated.  And then... a few months later .. came the Hungarian Revolution, a popular anti-Communist uprising, drowned in blood by the Russians. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956].  

 

We must remember that Communists were not evil children of Satan. Many, among the rank and file especially, were very decent people, who thought they were fighting for a better world. They were terribly misguided, of course. And when the truth was presented to them from a source they could not question -- what the lawyers call "testimony against interest" -- they left the Party in droves.  My friend was one of them.  He later joined the Trotskyists and stayed there for a few years, but by the late 60s had become more or less a conventional liberal. I don't know what he would think about the current degeneration of the non-Communist Left on the civil liberties issue.  (The Communist Left in all its manifestations, has always been against civil liberties.)

 

On how far the Right went: Well, in some ways you're right. The issues of the day were basically perceived loyalty to America. The non-Communist Left was slightly less nationalistic than the Right, but ... if you were a liberal, had not signed any Communist petitions fitteen years earlier, would sign a loyalty oath ... you could keep your job.  (There was some informal persecution of liberals, for sure. Where I grew up, in Houston, Texas, in the 1950s, if you wrote a letter to the editor favoring school integration, and signed your real name, and if certain Rightwingers could find your name in the phone book -- you would be rung up every fifteen minutes, around the clock ... they had a group of people organized for that: one would ring at midnight, another at 12.15, etc.  My parents had the engine of their car ruined when someone dropped woodscrews into the gas tank -- they had an anti war sticker on the car.  )

 

At that time, the 'dissidents' -- the Communists and their sympathyzers -- were a tiny minority, extremely isolated. The overwhelming majority of Americans, liberals and conservatives alike, rejected them.  Liberals in Congress, including the furthest-left one, like Hubert Humphrey, had no problem in voting to outright outlaw the CP. (In fact, Humphrey actually sponsored the bill in the Senate. It passed unanimously, but is so obviously so unConstitutional that it has never been enforced.)

 

Then ... the academy, the arts, the journalism profession -- the "cultural apparatus" -- was largely tolerant of liberals and non-CP lefties.  People like C. Wright Mills could continue to teach.  Now, the big corporations, the universities, etc. bow to the PC Left, and purge their conservatives. 

 

However, we're about half the population.  So we won't  -- we can't -- just keep our heads down. This means ongoing hatefilled struggle.  The recent killings we have seen as AntiFa and BurnLootMurder try to destroy the country are just a precursor of what may be coming.

 

As for violence: several CP leaders were violently attacked in prison, to which they had been sent by the Smith Act in 1949.  One of them, Bob Thompson, probably died early because of those injuries. His biography is interesting: [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Thompson  ]

 

But the best known example of rightwing violence was the concert(s) at Peekskill, New York. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peekskill_riots  ] The Wiki article is laughably biased, by the way, obviously written by a hard-core CP sympathyzer. The riots were not "anti-Semitic" or "anti African American", but anti-Communist.  The CP always tried to claim that attacks on it were motivated by racism and anti-Semitism, instead of hatred of them because they were the advance guard of the Red Army.

 

Anyway, effectively, the Left and the Right have switched sides on this issue.  It's going to be interesting to see what these people do when they have the power, as I fear they will after 3 November.  We will need to learn the techniques of operating in an authoritarian society, and plan to rectify things as the country unravels under their rule  (Think San Francisco writ large.)

I disagree with one thing here friend.

 

I don't think they switched sides at all. I think liberals have always more or less been advocates of Communism to varying degrees. 

 

In my estimation the left has moved far left and the right has moved moderately left.

 

For instance there is no point in being a conservative anymore as they don't actually want to conserve anything.

 

They don't want to conserve family values,religion, culture,nothing. Not even monetary policy. 

 

Thier move left doesn't mean lefties moved right.

 

This is why I think your premise they have switched sides is incorrect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, kfools said:

I disagree with one thing here friend.

 

I don't think they switched sides at all. I think liberals have always more or less been advocates of Communism to varying degrees. 

 

In my estimation the left has moved far left and the right has moved moderately left.

 

For instance there is no point in being a conservative anymore as they don't actually want to conserve anything.

 

They don't want to conserve family values,religion, culture,nothing. Not even monetary policy. 

 

Thier move left doesn't mean lefties moved right.

 

This is why I think your premise they have switched sides is incorrect.

Yep... the right has gone more to center, and the left has gone completely off the deep end.

 

JFK would be considered a pretty staunch Republican these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, kfools said:

I disagree with one thing here friend.

 

I don't think they switched sides at all. I think liberals have always more or less been advocates of Communism to varying degrees. 

 

In my estimation the left has moved far left and the right has moved moderately left.

 

For instance there is no point in being a conservative anymore as they don't actually want to conserve anything.

 

They don't want to conserve family values,religion, culture,nothing. Not even monetary policy. 

 

Thier move left doesn't mean lefties moved right.

 

This is why I think your premise they have switched sides is incorrect.

Well, we will have to disagree here.  Although I think you mean by "Communism" things like votes for women, equal rights for Blacks, free speech, social security, trade unions ... in which case, then Robert Welch of the John Birch Society was right: Eisenhower was a "conscious agent of the Communist conspriacy".  

 

However, consider another view:  if you look at the history of the growth of capitalism in the West, it's not a pretty picture. No human history is, of course, going right back to our hominid ancestors.  

 

About the middle of the 19th Century, a movement arose (there were precursors but not important ones) which said, "The problem is, the means of production and distribution are all owned by a small class of people, who run them for their own profit. What we need is for the productive forces to be owned by everyone. And that can only be done through the state."  

So this movement had the goal of turning all productive property -- farms, factories, shops -- into government property, with what was produced being set out by a plan.  

 

The most consistent of these people were the Marxists. They existed pretty much only in Europe in any numbers -- not yet in the Third World, and not in the US ... although the Socialist Party did get 6& of the vote in 1912.  They were mass electoral parties in Europe, and were growing in strength in several places, especially Germany, until World War I came alng.  This split the socialist movement -- they had all pledged to oppose their own government in case of war, but in fact they all supported it. But the Left wing of this movement didn't go along with the patriotic turn, and in Russia, in 1917, they came to power.

 

Then the socialist movement split formally, with the left wing leaving to form the Communist Parties. They rejected the 'peaceful, electoral' road to socialism -- not on principle, but because they didn't think it would work. Like the socialists, they -- after going through a decade or more of ultra-left sectarianism -- began to fight for reforms under capitalims. This was true after 1935, when Stalin realized the hardline attitude of the Communists -- in Germany, before Hitler, they had called the Socialists the 'main enemy' -- had led to disaster.  So from about 1936 on, the CP pursued what they called "the Popular Front".

 

They had always fought for trade unions, for Black rights, etc ... but had done so in a sectarian way. Now they embraced liberals, built 'front groups' for liberals to join (which were always led by the CP). It worked a treat. And when the USSR and the US fought on the same side against Hitler, they could pretend to be genuine patriots, and their numbers grew.

 

At that time, many liberals were happy to co operate with the CP, who were very dedicated, and did all the heavy lifting in their joint organizations.  But after WWII as over, and the Cold War began, liberals fled from them.  Many liberals had never been in favor of the one-party state, and in general were in favor of reforming capitalism, not overthrowing it. (As they are today.)

 

So, my point is, liberals and Communists often favor the same things: an anti-lynching bill, for instance, or unemployment insurance, or a minimum wage.  But the Communists believe that these reforms are ultimately vulnerable, if capitalism itself is not overthrown.  Liberals don't believe this.  

 

Now we have 'progressives', with whom I'm not so familiar.  I think they stand between old-fashioned liberals, and outright communists, in their attitude to capitalism ... but that's just a guess. Maybe the progressives on this forum could enlighten us.

 

But from what I see, the 'progressives' are entirely hand-in-hand with the big corporations. And, unlike the old Communists and socialists, they have contempt for the American working class.  They mainly appear to be spoiled snotty brats, who look down on conservatives as their social inferiors. 

 

Anyway, they are very successfully destroying the key things that hold a country together -- in particular, patriotism (which is, incidentally, the only real anti-racism).   

 

I believe that if they have a few more years to work, and then the US hits some big shocks -- as when we face our inevitable decline from World Number One, as China succeeds us -- and then maybe a big depression --- we are in for trouble.

 

But at the moment, we are in our Weimar Republic phase.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Doug1943 said:

Well, we will have to disagree here.  Although I think you mean by "Communism" things like votes for women, equal rights for Blacks, free speech, social security, trade unions ... in which case, then Robert Welch of the John Birch Society was right: Eisenhower was a "conscious agent of the Communist conspriacy".  

Some of those things qualify yes.

42 minutes ago, Doug1943 said:

However, consider another view:  if you look at the history of the growth of capitalism in the West, it's not a pretty picture. No human history is, of course, going right back to our hominid ancestors.  

Ok.

42 minutes ago, Doug1943 said:

About the middle of the 19th Century, a movement arose (there were precursors but not important ones) which said, "The problem is, the means of production and distribution are all owned by a small class of people, who run them for their own profit. What we need is for the productive forces to be owned by everyone. And that can only be done through the state."  

So this movement had the goal of turning all productive property -- farms, factories, shops -- into government property, with what was produced being set out by a plan.  

Jewish communists. 

42 minutes ago, Doug1943 said:

The most consistent of these people were the Marxists. They existed pretty much only in Europe in any numbers -- not yet in the Third World, and not in the US ... although the Socialist Party did get 6& of the vote in 1912.  They were mass electoral parties in Europe, and were growing in strength in several places, especially Germany, until World War I came alng.  This split the socialist movement -- they had all pledged to oppose their own government in case of war, but in fact they all supported it. But the Left wing of this movement didn't go along with the patriotic turn, and in Russia, in 1917, they came to power.

What do you mean they didn't go along with it? Marxism is the extreme of left wing ideology it was then too.

42 minutes ago, Doug1943 said:

Then the socialist movement split formally, with the left wing leaving to form the Communist Parties. They rejected the 'peaceful, electoral' road to socialism -- not on principle, but because they didn't think it would work. Like the socialists, they -- after going through a decade or more of ultra-left sectarianism -- began to fight for reforms under capitalims. This was true after 1935, when Stalin realized the hardline attitude of the Communists -- in Germany, before Hitler, they had called the Socialists the 'main enemy' -- had led to disaster.  So from about 1936 on, the CP pursued what they called "the Popular Front".

 

They had always fought for trade unions, for Black rights, etc ... but had done so in a sectarian way. Now they embraced liberals, built 'front groups' for liberals to join (which were always led by the CP). It worked a treat. And when the USSR and the US fought on the same side against Hitler, they could pretend to be genuine patriots, and their numbers grew.

I don't dispute this is accurate.

42 minutes ago, Doug1943 said:

At that time, many liberals were happy to co operate with the CP, who were very dedicated, and did all the heavy lifting in their joint organizations.  But after WWII as over, and the Cold War began, liberals fled from them.  Many liberals had never been in favor of the one-party state, and in general were in favor of reforming capitalism, not overthrowing it. (As they are today.)

Which ones?

42 minutes ago, Doug1943 said:

So, my point is, liberals and Communists often favor the same things: an anti-lynching bill, for instance, or unemployment insurance, or a minimum wage.  But the Communists believe that these reforms are ultimately vulnerable, if capitalism itself is not overthrown.  Liberals don't believe this.  

Prove they don't believe that. I think that's exactly what they believe.

42 minutes ago, Doug1943 said:

Now we have 'progressives', with whom I'm not so familiar.  I think they stand between old-fashioned liberals, and outright communists, in their attitude to capitalism ... but that's just a guess. Maybe the progressives on this forum could enlighten us.

 

But from what I see, the 'progressives' are entirely hand-in-hand with the big corporations. And, unlike the old Communists and socialists, they have contempt for the American working class.  They mainly appear to be spoiled snotty brats, who look down on conservatives as their social inferiors. 

That's accurate to a point. You left out that they embrace the scientific method as being an all powerful dogma and supreme being. 

 

That priests of this new religion wear lab coats in place white clerical collars. 

42 minutes ago, Doug1943 said:

Anyway, they are very successfully destroying the key things that hold a country together -- in particular, patriotism (which is, incidentally, the only real anti-racism).   

You can't have it without a homogeneous society. 

42 minutes ago, Doug1943 said:

I believe that if they have a few more years to work, and then the US hits some big shocks -- as when we face our inevitable decline from World Number One, as China succeeds us -- and then maybe a big depression --- we are in for trouble.

 

But at the moment, we are in our Weimar Republic phase.

Good point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, maineman said:

ONE MAN ONE VOTE.

 

A VOTER IN WYOMING HAS SEVEN TIMES AS MUCH VALUE AS A VOTER IN CALIFORNIA.  AND YOU ARE COOL WITH THAT?

You need to rework your math.  And yes I feel a Wyoming voter's opinion is far more useful than some blithering idiot that voted for Newsome or Pelosi.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scout said:

 

And likewise will have the opportunity to make each person's vote of equal

value with 'one man, one vote' replacing the EC. 

But then you have the likes of Newsome and Cuomo running the country and you can bet they will not represent the vast majority of the US. PYHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doug1943 said:

Well, we will have to disagree here.  Although I think you mean by "Communism" things like votes for women, equal rights for Blacks, free speech, social security, trade unions ... in which case, then Robert Welch of the John Birch Society was right: Eisenhower was a "conscious agent of the Communist conspriacy".  

 

However, consider another view:  if you look at the history of the growth of capitalism in the West, it's not a pretty picture. No human history is, of course, going right back to our hominid ancestors.  

 

About the middle of the 19th Century, a movement arose (there were precursors but not important ones) which said, "The problem is, the means of production and distribution are all owned by a small class of people, who run them for their own profit. What we need is for the productive forces to be owned by everyone. And that can only be done through the state."  

So this movement had the goal of turning all productive property -- farms, factories, shops -- into government property, with what was produced being set out by a plan.  

 

The most consistent of these people were the Marxists. They existed pretty much only in Europe in any numbers -- not yet in the Third World, and not in the US ... although the Socialist Party did get 6& of the vote in 1912.  They were mass electoral parties in Europe, and were growing in strength in several places, especially Germany, until World War I came alng.  This split the socialist movement -- they had all pledged to oppose their own government in case of war, but in fact they all supported it. But the Left wing of this movement didn't go along with the patriotic turn, and in Russia, in 1917, they came to power.

 

Then the socialist movement split formally, with the left wing leaving to form the Communist Parties. They rejected the 'peaceful, electoral' road to socialism -- not on principle, but because they didn't think it would work. Like the socialists, they -- after going through a decade or more of ultra-left sectarianism -- began to fight for reforms under capitalims. This was true after 1935, when Stalin realized the hardline attitude of the Communists -- in Germany, before Hitler, they had called the Socialists the 'main enemy' -- had led to disaster.  So from about 1936 on, the CP pursued what they called "the Popular Front".

 

They had always fought for trade unions, for Black rights, etc ... but had done so in a sectarian way. Now they embraced liberals, built 'front groups' for liberals to join (which were always led by the CP). It worked a treat. And when the USSR and the US fought on the same side against Hitler, they could pretend to be genuine patriots, and their numbers grew.

 

At that time, many liberals were happy to co operate with the CP, who were very dedicated, and did all the heavy lifting in their joint organizations.  But after WWII as over, and the Cold War began, liberals fled from them.  Many liberals had never been in favor of the one-party state, and in general were in favor of reforming capitalism, not overthrowing it. (As they are today.)

 

So, my point is, liberals and Communists often favor the same things: an anti-lynching bill, for instance, or unemployment insurance, or a minimum wage.  But the Communists believe that these reforms are ultimately vulnerable, if capitalism itself is not overthrown.  Liberals don't believe this.  

 

Now we have 'progressives', with whom I'm not so familiar.  I think they stand between old-fashioned liberals, and outright communists, in their attitude to capitalism ... but that's just a guess. Maybe the progressives on this forum could enlighten us.

 

But from what I see, the 'progressives' are entirely hand-in-hand with the big corporations. And, unlike the old Communists and socialists, they have contempt for the American working class.  They mainly appear to be spoiled snotty brats, who look down on conservatives as their social inferiors. 

 

Anyway, they are very successfully destroying the key things that hold a country together -- in particular, patriotism (which is, incidentally, the only real anti-racism).   

 

I believe that if they have a few more years to work, and then the US hits some big shocks -- as when we face our inevitable decline from World Number One, as China succeeds us -- and then maybe a big depression --- we are in for trouble.

 

But at the moment, we are in our Weimar Republic phase.

Excellent. I disagree in one way, the Progressives are leftist scum, they have embraced China and their aim is to weaken us to be vulnerable to China. This can be accomplished in several ways but the one they are putting forth presently is civil war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, RayDonavin said:

You need to rework your math.  And yes I feel a Wyoming voter's opinion is far more useful than some blithering idiot that voted for Newsome or Pelosi.

that is clearly an unAmerican attitude.

 

One man one vote.

 

YOU need to find a brick wall and a firing squad.  

 

Given your clown squad membership, I assume no mask?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, maineman said:

YOU need to find a brick wall and a firing squad.  

 

Given your clown squad membership, I assume no mask?

 

Careful Ray.   This ^^^^^ COWARD has said in the past "It is my greatest fantasy... to watch the blood spurt from republicans on this site as I and my duly authorized firing squad executes them for being domestic enemies of our glorious constitution."    That's what's in store for you and me if he and his party win the coming election.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maineman said:

that is clearly an unAmerican attitude.

 

One man one vote.

 

YOU need to find a brick wall and a firing squad.  

 

Given your clown squad membership, I assume no mask?

Fuck you a worthless POS that would vote for Biden is not equal to someone who would vote for Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, maineman said:

that is clearly an unAmerican attitude.

 

One man one vote.

 

YOU need to find a brick wall and a firing squad.  

 

Given your clown squad membership, I assume no mask?

 

America has NEVER been a pure democracy... it was one of the compromises that permitted the United States of America to be BORN 250 years ago!!  IF you remove the protections that the Electoral College provides to the smaller states... the Constitution is Null and VOID... and the United States could LEGALLY be dissolved IMMEDIATELY... because the AGREEMENT has been BROKEN !  It is as IMPORTANT today, as it was THEN !!

 

IF you advocate for THAT... then YOU need to find the brick wall... NOT anyone else !!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RayDonavin said:

Fuck you a worthless POS that would vote for Biden is not equal to someone who would vote for Trump.

MAN... You have no idea how fast I would volunteer to be on that squad!

 

The clown is going down and then we'll come after all the disloyal traitors like you.  Sleep with one eye open.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, maineman said:

MAN... You have no idea how fast I would volunteer to be on that squad!

 

The clown is going down and then we'll come after all the disloyal traitors like you.  Sleep with one eye open.

 

Cool story bro.

 

I see you continue to project. Your fear over those wolf tickets you're trying to sell not coming to realization is obvious. And it must just terrorize you to think Trump will get four more years, seeing as the fear you're projecting and attempting to make everyone else feel.

 

Actually, you're the one that needs to sleep with one eye open (if you're not already, that is).

 

History has proven again and again that once the useful idiots (like you) do the commies dirty work, the commies reward them with the big sleep. If the useful idiots succeed, you won't be volunteering for a firing squad, you'll be in front of one.

 

Leaving you two choices:

 

Pray your fellow useful idiots fail,

 

Or sleep with one eye open because your leadership will be coming for you.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2020 at 6:47 PM, Michaelf said:

There's an example of your lack of "critical thinking skills. Simply take the offending shoe off. Then walk like a normal human while carrying the shoe.

Morning comrade

 

Does the shoe fit?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, maineman said:

MAN... You have no idea how fast I would volunteer to be on that squad!

 

The clown is going down and then we'll come after all the disloyal traitors like you.  Sleep with one eye open.

 

YOU are what the KGB used to call a "Useful Idiot" for the Marxist cause... LOOK it UP !!  YOU think that you will live in some sort of Socialist utopia after the Socialists take over (IF they take over)... BUT, the KGB used to say, that Idealistic IDIOTS like you are ONLY good to destabilize a country... After that happens and the Marxists take control... YOU will be among the FIRST to be SHOT !!  Because YOU believed the Idealistic BULL SHIT that their propaganda put out... and THAT makes you dangerous !

 

So, I hope it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling KNOWING... that one day, YOU will be shot EITHER by your Marxist Socialist MASTERS... OR, By the people fighting a civil war to DEFEAT them... BUT, that IS what lies in store for you !

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ConservativeVoice said:

 

YOU are what the KGB used to call a "Useful Idiot" for the Marxist cause... LOOK it UP !!  YOU think that you will live in some sort of Socialist utopia after the Socialists take over (IF they take over)... BUT, the KGB used to say, that Idealistic IDIOTS like you are ONLY good to destabilize a country... After that happens and the Marxists take control... YOU will be among the FIRST to be SHOT !!  Because YOU believed the Idealistic BULL SHIT that their propaganda put out... and THAT makes you dangerous !

 

So, I hope it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling KNOWING... that one day, YOU will be shot EITHER by your Marxist Socialist MASTERS... OR, By the people fighting a civil war to DEFEAT them... BUT, that IS what lies in store for you !

cool story bro!

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, maineman said:
17 hours ago, superds77 said:

Remember when Republicans tried to stop Sotomayor and Kagan?

 

Neither do I.

Scalia was unanimously confirmed.  Times change.  Garland.  Sow the wind...reap the whirlwind.

The "breeze" is blowing with the 3rd SCOTUS appointment by President Trump, Amy Coney Barret.

 

I love this type of "payback". Give us more!

 

Can you be honest and acknowledge that a democrat president and senate would do the EXACT SAME THING that is happening now?

 

If, God forbid, the democrats won the senate, would they give  a Trump nominee a hearing? Don't think so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, superds77 said:

The "breeze" is blowing with the 3rd SCOTUS appointment by President Trump, Amy Coney Barret.

 

I love this type of "payback". Give us more!

 

Can you be honest and acknowledge that a democrat president and senate would do the EXACT SAME THING that is happening now?

 

If, God forbid, the democrats won the senate, would they give  a Trump nominee a hearing? Don't think so.

I would suggest that the democrats will win not only the senate, but the whitehouse.   I believe that passing the "Merrick Garland Karma is a Bitch Supreme Court Realignment Bill" along with Puerto Rico and DC statehood will be a great couple of installments in our "payback" plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, maineman said:

cool story bro!

 

Yah, cool story. To bad history proves it true and factual time and time again.

 

As far as enemies of the state goes, those people attempting to burn down a federal courthouse for 90 days, are they enemies   of the state? And those people rioting and burning down our cities, are they enemies of the state? Surprise, surprise, the liberals support them, so who are the real enemies of the state?

 

Second, as far as firing squads, the socialist utopia is a lie, Soros knows it, the communist know it. It's nothing more than a way to get the useful idiots riled up. So once the communist get what they want, they're left with a problem: what do we do when all those useful idiots realize they're been had and their utopian dreams aren't fulfilled. The useful idiots will start asking questions and the communist can't have that. Knowing the useful idiots are troublemakers (they proved this by doing the communist dirty work) the commies will opt to get rid of them.

 

Still doubt me? Tell me, commie, how are you dealing with dissent now? You're threatening to place people in front of a firing squad for doing nothing more than exercising their constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech. And you claim to be a patriot sworn to protect the constitution.

 

What do you think the Marxist, who don't give a puppy fart about the constitution, will do? By then it will be too late.

 

Like I said, you have two choices:

 

Pray your fellow useful idiots fail

 

or

 

Sleep with one eye open, knowing the people YOU put into power will turn on YOU.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, maineman said:

I would suggest that the democrats will win not only the senate, but the whitehouse.   I believe that passing the "Merrick Garland Karma is a Bitch Supreme Court Realignment Bill" along with Puerto Rico and DC statehood will be a great couple of installments in our "payback" plan.

 

Cool story bro.

 

Sure and you believe the above quote so deeply you refused to bet on it.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

Sell your wolf tickets elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, maineman said:

that is clearly an unAmerican attitude.

 

One man one vote.

 

YOU need to find a brick wall and a firing squad.  

 

Given your clown squad membership, I assume no mask?

  So, you DON'T believe in the Constitution and it's protections.

  Another comie-cocksucka.

  Then again, what else is new for the Maine-marxist!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maineman said:

I would suggest that the democrats will win not only the senate, but the whitehouse.   I believe that passing the "Merrick Garland Karma is a Bitch Supreme Court Realignment Bill" along with Puerto Rico and DC statehood will be a great couple of installments in our "payback" plan.

  BUT, your dream has to come to fruition before your utopia will be realized.  (BARF).

  AND Trump is going to be reelected as the President of the USA.

  I'm just hoping that the House becomes conservative too.  A very good chance of that.

  Then we can watch you liberals/communists cry your eyes out and stamp you feet and claim "it was unfair".          :)  :)  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...