If you wanted to, how would you foment Civil War in America?

Johnson will be happy to hear that. Go to his grave to tell him yourself.

It was mostly about ugly ads. I do not excuse americans for any of that either. I never saw Russian ads. And think this over. The media had plenty of time and opportunity over the past two years to show some of them to us all. But not even 20/20 or the news showed any of them to us.

Tell you what. i will now google for Russian ads shown to Americans to see what shows up.

Ask a Democrat what was in the Russian ads and none of them can tell us.

i know this because of this fact. We have talked a lot about Russian ads. No Democrat has shown them to us.

I hunted for them and got a report so far.

A super small number of the ads named by Democrats mentioned any candidate for office.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...russians-accused-election-meddling/602319002/

Hey, even this news source did not show us any ads.

 

These are supposedly Russian ads, selected by the news to try to blame Trump of course



Notice this if you think you spotted it all.

it says SPONSORED. What does that mean to you?

This is a more normal ad

https://www.cbsnews.com/media/russian-ads-on-facebook-a-gallery/

 

So, you have laid down the terms, EITHER get behind your fascist liar fool, or we are, PERPETUATING a civil war. BONKERS.

 

I am thrilled you keep aware of the jobs held by Oliver North. But he is not quitting over going Bankrupt. Were that his reason, you would quote a serious article attempting to prove your claims.

I know that North and Wayne have been having a fight. But you did not mention that. Gee, wonder why not?

 

I believe this is just more pretensions to victim hood. The absolute torrent of liberals flooding into conservative states and cities speaks a different message. If liberals were actually afraid of conservatives, they would avoid them instead of going out of their way to insert themselves into conservative areas. The data is REAL damn clear about this trend.... undeniably clear.

 

Why in the hell would the DOMINANAT CULTURE form gangs? They don't need protection, folks need protection from them.

 

Two separate issues. But, LaPierre said North EXTORTED him, and the ATTORNEY GENERAL has started an investigation, which includes SUBPEONAS.

 

You are hair trigger, against an INVASION, and you want a PURGE. Like I said, eliminationist rhetoric.

 

A well regulated militia is made up of Americans who own and use their own arms.
They make America safer by defending themselves and their property and possibly that of others.
The possibility also exists of individuals fighting along side the military should America see sone sort of invasion or even joining the army with some skills due to being familiar with arms.
Lastly and not uncommon to be prepared to assist the police.

At any rate the rights of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.

 

i know that. So what does that have to do with your claim it was because the NRA is bankrupt?

 

It shall be infringed, EVERY time the people vote to do so. And some other times.

You obviously think folks should not be allowed to curtail your six gun when you blow into town.

 

By culture, you speak of whites. And you classify them as dominant. But when blacks live with Whites, normally there may not be black gangs either. Seems to me that is blacks against blacks.
So where are those white gangs busting into black stores and into black homes?

 

You contradicted the constitution. I think you know this too.

 

Sorry but he hasn't done much to earn my respect but has broken the bank on earning my disdain and disgust with his chronic lies, bullshit, kneejerk ignorance, bigotry, bullying, criminality, disrespect and corruption. Leaders are judged on their character, their deeds, their ability to inspire and motivate. And Trump fails on virtually every measurable parameter of leadership and is a disgrace to the office.

 

They are breaking into white stores and white homes, cause generally they have greater target value and there's way more of them and they don't look "out of place" in white neighborhoods? Jus' guessin'.

 

INFRINGE does NOT mean BAN. Try carrying your weapon in new York city. Your right to a weapon, shall be infringed, EVERY TIME you go see your messiah Trump.

 

I agree it should be well regulated. Isn't that the crux of the entire debate?

 

So, you tell me what infringe means.

Try this. Your right to free speech shall not be infringed.

Or this.

Your right to a fair trial shall not be infringed.

explain infringe.

PS. merely being the president in no way makes the man a messiah.

Was Obama your messiah?

 

When operating as a militia. But take me out shooting targets. That right is never to be infringed.

 

I just never hear of such gangs. Can you cite examples?

 

Take away video games from nerds. Of course they would rebel but would be put down easily once their parents kicked them out of their basements.

 

Increase in conflict in the U.S. will likely rise considerably if the extensive supply chains that provide only a few days' worth of food, fuel, medicine, and even ammo for each town and city is disrupted. And conflict will not involve civil war but riots as neighbor attacks neighbor over dwindling supplies.

 

I didn't allow Obama lying, hating, attacking the innocent indulgences. YOU DO.

INFRINGE, is ANY LIMITATION. Thus, your definition, which is WRONG, states that it cannot be limited in any way. This is bonkers.

 

Of course, the only people who want to get rid of the second amendment (and guns) fall in one of two categories- they either are part of a movement to undermine the constitution and overthrow government. Such people cultivate irrational fears and "solutions" that simultaneously serve their hidden agendas. Among the public, the issue is mostly supported by people with a condition known as Holophobia- an irrational fear of weapons. Such people see weapons as some people see snakes, believing that they all have a conscious malice and intent to harm them, thus their very existence is a threat. They also believe that a person so mentally disturbed as to be driven to kill, will somehow loose that motivation to kill if there were no gun available. They believe that guns kill people; that the person who pulls the trigger is only violent because they can get a gun.

Regardless of laws or efforts, the concept of getting rids of guns has as much chance of being successful as the 50-year, trillions of dollars war on drugs has had. All we would do is drive guns underground, make honest people into criminals, create a thriving black market, and disarm the very people who are being defended by guns. A truly stupid choice that hasn't the slightest chance of producing any real social good, but a sure guarantee it will do the opposite.

The anti-gun mentality is of course totally illogical and emotional, not factual in it's base. Long before guns were invented, mass murders were taking place. The largest mass murders in history were not done with guns. These things happen not because of the availability of weapons- but because of the mental state of the human mind; the capacity for anger and to serve some sick personal emotion by killing other people. When we start to address that, we will begin to change the death toll.

 

That is a REALY stupid strawman, designed to make GUN NUTS seem sane. TOO MANY GUN NUTS. SOMETHING BAD will happen. We need less gun nuts.

Gun nuts also usually have the CRAZY fears. Crazy fears of a brown invasion, a lib invasion, a trans invasion, a nobody deserves a dime of MY wage crazy.

They are willing to use their arsenals, as domestic terrorism.

The THREAT, of all them gun nuts, using all them guns, that they have stockpiled, for JUST such a purpose, will be used to slaughter half the population, as they is BADDD, libs and commies.