| Author | Message | ||
     Ratbuell |
So...I originally typed this up in the Never Again thread, but figured this is a better place for it, so I moved it. I'm watching Tucker. Footage from restaurants around the country, where Antifa is barging in, throwing furniture, dumping people's food, downing their drinks, shouting in their faces....until the people give up and leave. My question is...what happens when someone fights back? When someone's had enough? When someone figures "you're not downing my cocktail" and punches someone in the throat. Or breaks their arm. Or pulls a handgun and starts shooting. How long do we think that's going to take? Do these spoiled little brats even think about stuff like that, as they attack innocent people having dinner? Is that going to be the beginning of the End? The end of our great nation? Or the end of Antifa? Do we, as a Nation....WANT someone to fight back? Or do we still think there's a peaceful, diplomatic solution? Where's the tipping point? What do you think YOU would do, if it happened where you and your family were eating? Would you leave? Stand your ground? Encourage other diners to stand up and fight with you? | ||
| Aesquire |
I'd like to think I would deconflict... Oh, wait, I mean walk away from the fight, walk away from the check, and say nothing to escalate the situation. That's the advice I'd give anyone. R.A.H. once wrote, "It's amazing how much mature wisdom resembles being too tired" and I'm too old for that sh$%. I'd like to think that would be my response. It's the smart move. Logic over ego. Better to be calm outwardly, than go through the whole arrest, trial, and probably prison terms I'd get, because I'm not a rich spoiled brat & would Not get a pass. And, that's going to be my considered opinion. Public call for peace and tolerance. I honestly don't know if that's what will happen, I'm imperfect. So I'll try to avoid the question becoming a decision. Ultimately, it's not jail, or debt, or infamy that guides the peaceful choice. It's that I don't want to tell some grieving parents why their idiot son is crippled or dead. | ||
| Aesquire |
Another quote applies... Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate--and quickly. | ||
| Aesquire |
The ONLY justification for using deadly force is to protect human life. Further, the threat must be real, and not potential. There's a lot of moral values discussion in the world, and I'll just point out that it's a real good idea to study some, before committing to a moral stand. Another factor to consider... There are evil men behind this Summer's riots. Rich, powerful, greedy monsters who don't care if you, or their minions, die. In fact, they WANT casualties. And they'd rather someone they sponsor and encourage be killed, since they will use those deaths to their advantage. See the persecution of the 17 year old attacked by the thugs. All over the news. Near zero coverage of innocent victims of Antifa/BLM/Party. | ||
| Ratbuell |
All understood, and all in my "prior knowledge and upbringing" file. I also understand the concepts behind the 3%ers. 1. Moral Strength - Knowing what is right and wrong and acting accordingly. Being trustworthy, truthful, and holding high values and principles. Strength to stand up when something is morally wrong. 2. Physical Readiness - Physical readiness is defined as the ability to meet the physical demands of any task in order to accomplish the objective at hand. There are some III%ers that have disabilities that prevent them from meeting physical demands and for these there is an exception. 3. No First Use of Force - "Don't fire unless fired upon". We are not the aggressor nor antagonist. We are purely defensive and only as a last resort. My concern is, at what point do we transfer from Peaceful Citizens...to what the 3%ers consider "Minutemen"? When are we obliged to stand up to these terrorists (and their tyrant financiers)? At what point does society have a duty to shut this down (since law enforcement and government is apparently unwilling and/or unable to do so, for whatever reason)? What, in today's scenario, constitutes "not firing first"? Or do we have to let the country go down the shitter first, then struggle to get it back? | ||
| Aesquire |
https://amgreatness.com/2020/09/10/the-resistance- war-games-a-post-election-civil-war/ | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/09/rotte n_smell_from_the_left_biden_democrats_hurl_eggs_at _small_children_at_trump_rally.html | ||
| Ebutch |
   | ||
| Ebutch |
The demorats Will Burn For These Babies !!!!!!  | ||
| Court |
I think the photo and the caption are unrelated. But . . . am "mind wide open" to someone who can provide any credible link associating the two. The internet is, in many ways and far too often, a fool's newspaper. But, in a world where so many believe it . . . it provides a good deal of entertainment. | ||
| Ebutch |
 | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/09/the -pelosi-confusion.php Let me translate. There will be riots, impeachment theater, lies, and murder until we win. | ||
| Ducbsa |
https://thewriterinblack.com/2020/09/20/fisking-14 -defining-characteristics-of-fascism/ | ||
| Ratbuell |
From the comments section on the Pelosi bit (regarding appointing a new Justice before the election): Here are the words of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2016 regarding the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. "There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being the president in his last year," Ginsburg said in a 2016 New York Times interview in which she called for Garland to receive a confirmation vote in the Senate. As for whether the Senate should take up a vote on Garland, Ginsburg said at the time, "That's their job." I wonder how the left will spin THAT one, in order to "honor" RBG's memory and legacy...? | ||
| Whisperstealth |
As much as I'd like to see another Trump appointed Justice on the Supreme Court, I feel he should not nominate a replacement for the empty seat until after the election. And not at all if he isn't reelected. The Senate Republicans blocked Obama's nomination, and I personally feel it would be hypocritical of them to vote on a replacement before the election. They may legally get away with it, but that doesn't make it right in my book. It also sets up an excuse for expansion of the Court should the Democrats take the White House, Senate, and House. Elections have consequences. So do dirty games. While I do believe the Republicans need to "take the gloves off", this is a case where fair play matters. | ||
| Ducbsa |
 | ||
| Ratbuell |
I don't think nominating now is dirty anything. Nothing unfair about it. It's the way the Constitution was written. The Dems don't like. They don't like anything about that document. They've made that clear. But the law of the land, is the law of the land. Period. He IS the President. It IS his job to keep the Court filled. If the opposing party doesn't like it...they can filibuster their brains out. THOSE optics would be pretty •••••• for them. Let 'em go for it if they want - but the reason they're shilling for a delay, and screaming bloody murder (and threatening it!), is because they know they're wrong. W. R. O. N. G. It is the President's right, prerogative, and DUTY to nominate a replacement so there is a full complement of Justices seated at the highest court in the land, as quickly as possible, to avoid any chance of a tie vote on an important issue. He should nominate. | ||
| Aesquire |
27 times in an election year. 9 times AFTER LOSING the election. ( that's from memory, please correct errors ) That's the actual precedent. For Supreme Court judges nominated & confirmed in American history. A. You don't stop being President until you pass the torch when your successor takes the oath in January. Fight wars, appoint judges, and give pardons. Clinton & Obama both appointed & pardoned up to the last second. Ditto Bush, Washington, Truman & EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT. ( except those who died in office. Duh. ) B. It doesn't matter if Trump nominates a replacement Justice today or next year. Whoever it is will be attacked, blocked, reviled and accused by the Enemy Party. C. Without a replacement, it may be tie votes on the mass fraud and abuse you can reliably bet on this November on. D. It's his job to do so. It's in the job description. His duty. And the Senate's. The House doesn't get a say. Or God King Xi. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/09/contr ary_to_appearances_sometimes_karma_does_get_leftis ts.html The Democrats appear to be systemically guilty of abuse of the emotionally disabled. I include their candidate, who apparently is sundowning by 9:30 am. ( since they cut off press theater before that ) | ||
| Hootowl |
Speak truth and bow down. https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/wells-fargo-ce o-charlie-scharf-diversity-limited-black-talent-ap ology Of course the talent pool isn’t as large for blacks as it it for others; there aren’t as many black people as there are whites etc. That doesn’t mean there are no talented or capable black people. I do think it is illegal to discriminate against an applicant based on skin color though, so only considering blacks is a clear violation of the civil rights act. | ||
| Ratbuell |
IT'S A QUOTA. QUOTAS SUCK. Don't hire someone (or NOT hire them) based on their skin, or gender, or anything other than their QUALIFICATIONS!!!!! ...and we wonder why corporate America is in the shitter, and we're losing our asses to international companies...we're hiring INCOMPETENTS, because they're the "right color", regardless of their actual ability to do the goddamned JOB. | ||
| Tpehak |
But if they will do so there will be only white people everywhere. | ||
| Oldog |
But if they will do so there will be only white people everywhere. Even though I am feeding Rat's pet troll That's racist. Plenty of skilled, talented Black people plenty of lazy unskilled in all colors. I see them routinely, many come in can barely read, write, follow verbal instructions, or even strike an arc and claim to be welders... | ||
| Tpehak |
Which makes me wonder why they take unskilled white people if there are skilled black people? | ||
| Ratbuell |
And if we have a pale workforce? Fine. It'll be a TALENTED workforce. But I think you're wrong. There are plenty of talented non-white people out there. Just look at our President's closest advisors. He hires TALENT, not skin color or gender. Or have you not seen Dr. Ben Carson on TV (black)? Or his campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway (female)? Betsy Devos (female)? Elaine Chao (female, AND asian)? Nikki Haley (female)? Paula White (female)? Those are just the ones who garner press coverage and exposure...but he hires people who PRODUCE. Period. Then, once we get back to actually hiring based on ABILITY, all the marginally-lazy people (of ANY color or gender) might get off their ASSES and realize jobs aren't participation trophies. You aren't OWED a job. You don't get one just because you whine about wanting it. You get OFF YOUR ASS, and you WORK, and you EARN IT. It's called "meritocracy". I don't give two ••••• what color your skin is, or what gender you "identify" as. Can you do the damned job? Great. You're hired. No? Come back when you're qualified. Whining won't help, go get trained. There is no gray area - either you can DO the job, or you can't. If you want to "identify" as successful, you have to WORK FOR IT. Saying black people and/or women can't get the jobs without quotas? THAT'S racist. | ||
| Zacks |
Wait a minute. Isn't it also racist and/or sexist to ONLY consider a black female running mate for VP? And to keep the discussion balanced: Why are only women judges being considered for the Supreme vacancy? If we as a society are supposed to be basing jobs (and that's what they both are) on the 'best suited', then why is the leadership of BOTH parties excluding what I have to believe are qualified individuals simply due to color or dangly bits. Feel free to discuss. | ||
| Hootowl |
Trump is considering only women because if he nominates a man the whores will come out of the woodwork with rape claims. | ||
| Pwnzor |
 | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/09/doj -would-prefer-not-to.php Since you lied and didn't even let the AG speak, it's obvious you are just doing theater instead of your job, so kiss my A## Representative Nadler. Give us a call when you need answers instead of props for your little hate plays. ( translation into FU language from legal-speak ) | ||
| Pwnzor |
|
