I'm not trying to denigrate anyone. I'm just saying what other people don't understand or are too scared to say. You might *think* you fought for the right to be free and for you that's probably all that matters but the fact is you didn't. This doesn't take away from your courage or your dedication or the fact that soldiers put their lives on the line. I am simply stating that you aren't responsible for any of our freedoms.


The problem here is that "idiots like you" don't realize that our greatest vulnerability is the market not the battlefield. It's "idiots like you" that have been allowing globalists to privatize the assets of our nation that have previously been under the sovereign protection of our republic. In a nutshell, there is no point in attacking us if everything that could possibly be gained is already up for sale on the free market.

And the only people you stand armed against are the people who dare challenge the oppressors that own and operate you.


That will never happen because no one gives a sh*t about attacking us in the first place for reasons I just explained. I understand, you need to validate yourself. Just don't expect me to buy your sh*t.


I wouldn't bet on that. Being armed to the teeth doesn't make you the best fighters. The U.S. military has a world-wide reputation for being over-dependent on equipment and weapons. This is why after 17 years we STILL can't beat the Taliban in Afghanistan, because we are limited by our reliance on 2nd generation warfare (radios and air strikes), which is much less effective in mountainous terrain. I can go on but I'm sure you're already seething.


Unless you're going to vote against Trump, we don't need your "help".

Let's review...

nwtk2007 wrote: In fact, you're on about your third ID here on opp. https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/tpr?p=2560621&t=140070

straightUp wrote: there is no way for anyone to KNOW who else has had multiple IDs, not even the admin. https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/tpr?p=2561640&t=140070

nwtk2007 wrote: That proves my point. How could you know that!? https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/tpr?p=2561677&t=140070

straightUp wrote: YOU were the one saying that I'm on my 3rd id AND calling it a "fact"... remember? https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/tpr?p=2561705&t=140070


You've seen WHAT many times?


(scratching my head) Are you actually trying to beat me with nonsense?

You're going to love this one then... If you value your freedom, thank a liberal.

I know this is where I piss a lot of people off, but if you're thinking we owe our freedom to soldiers, you're wrong. There is not a soldier alive today that has fought for our freedom. We owe it all to progressives, good lawyers and the idealism of our founding fathers.

If you disagree, feel free to counter but be prepared - this will not be the first time I've had this argument.

No, that proves MY point. YOU were the one saying that I'm on my 3rd id AND calling it a "fact"... remember?

What you witnessed at the school board and city hall meetings according to your description is NOT civil disobedience... it would be better described as compliant proceedings. You DO know what "disobedience" means, right? Now, you may never have experienced a situation where compliant proceedings threaten your freedom or your life (cities and schools rarely have that power) but state and federal proceedings sometimes do and this is where non-violent civil disobedience comes into the picture. If THAT doesn't work, violent rebellion is the next step to take (if the issue is worth the chaos). It's fortunate for us that civil disobedience is part of the American tradition and is in fact the reason for almost all the civil rights we have today. In many places like China and North Korea compliant proceedings are the final stand and civil disobedience will land you in prison.

Saul Alinski's book is a primer on civil disobedience and it's a mistake to write it off as an association with any specific party or movement. Rules for Radicals is universal, much like the Art of War. In fact it was the Tea Party (the first ever conservative movement with the balls to oppose the establishment) that brought the book out of obscurity. Unfortunately for them they didn't seem to have the fortitude to use it effectively.

I would advise you to read it, instead of using it as a rhetorical prop.

I'm not actually sure what you're talking about. Sorry.

I've mentioned it once. Feel free to look through my posts. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.


Your missing the point. If you go back through the conversation you will notice that I was responding to the statement that Trump was never accused of being a racist until the 2016 election. The fact is, he WAS accused; whether or not the charges were dismissed doesn't change that fact.


Yes, that is a whole other debate, but you would find me partially agreeing with you on that one. I oppose ALL income tax but I agree that property tax creates inequality between school districts.


First of all, I'm not a Democrat, so your barking up the wrong tree here, but more than that... the REASON why I am not a Democrat is because I am driven by ideas not identity politics. What troubles me is how people who ARE driven by identity politics spend so much time stressing the history of political parties that they forget to pay attention to the ideas that are making or breaking the republic right now.

That's very commendable.

First of all, I've only had one ID the whole time I've been here. Secondly, there is no way for anyone to KNOW who else has had multiple IDs, not even the admin. So, you are either extremely ignorant or so frustrated that you you can't help but lash out with baseless assertions. One thing is very clear though, you've proven yourself to be full of sh*t.

LOL... John Stuart Mill has a point there!

But stupidity is also a matter of degree. For the slightly-stupid conservatives it's often a matter of short-sight, where they fixate on a benefit (ie., lower tax) without realizing the consequence (ie., increased debt). For the ridiculously stupid conservatives it's a complete and willful inability to understand any part of political reality at all. I think Mill was referring to the ridiculously stupid, because ALL conservatives are at least slightly-stupid... unless they are a self-interested part of the 1%.

Dude... YOU were the one who told me to check Google.

https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/tpr?p=2560128&t=139949

Here's what Google comes back with...

https://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/upload/2018/9/11/t1-651229-capture.jpg

So, are you going to tell me Google is Maoist now?

It's not just your grammar, it's your semantics and your logic too. Take the first sentence out of what you just wrote for example... There are two logical constructs (or clauses); The first one, "Just because I didn't bother to check my auto correct" provides the REASON for the the second one by virtue of the words "Just because". But the second clause, "the one person on here who should NEVER be a grammar cop is the one who has absolutely no grammatical skills." has nothing to do with the first one. (If you meant for the first clause to be an aide, you should have added a period to separate the clauses into separate sentences.)

This might all seem contrived to you but to me it's as easy to see as a bug splat on the windshield and while it's easy to move on (I can usually figure out what people are "trying" to say) poor writing skills nevertheless indicate a struggle with language, not just writing but reading. After a while it becomes clear WHY people get so easily fooled by politics. This is why I sometimes act like a pedantic grammar cop, not so much to point out your errors (I'm not your teacher) but to remind others like me who are reading the thread that your understanding of politics is probably deficient. (You'd be surprised at how much more we can communicate over your head as you fume about grammar) ;)

Well, you seem to "know" a LOT more about this than anyone in the media OR the courtroom. What, are you roommates with the mastermind? LOL.


You mean like the Republicans did when the Democrats were trying to confirm Merrick Garland? So are you given signals on which examples of obstruction to get all righteous about, or is this just run-of-the-mill hypocrisy?


I bet he's at least smart enough to spell Kavanaugh correctly.


Huh... funny how I never heard any Democrat actually say that. The Democrats that I've heard and read are saying that Russians *may* have influenced the vote. So did you think that influencing a vote is the same thing as changing a vote? Or are you just a sucker for right-wing fibs?


LOL... You don't have to tell me... We've been saying that about the right since Bush.

What the hell are you talking about? I was pointing out the irony in the fact that Trump said he was going to come to Washington to "drain the swamp" but everyone he's fired so far have been people he actually hired. Then you made that comment about keeping your enemies close, as if it's a good idea for a president to put enemies in his cabinet. I was just saying that line only works for Hollywood mob movies.

Vietnam has nothing to do with any of that. Vietnam was a war that was fought almost half a century ago and you were either drafted or you were suckered into volunteering. Either way, you fought on the side of oppression, not liberty AND you lost. I'm sure you were *told* that you were fighting to keep the South Vietnamese "free" (which is probably a good thing to tell a kid as you hand him a gun) but we know better now. Besides, EVERY soldier that has EVER fought in a war was told the same crap. I'm sure the Redcoats in 1776 were also told they were fighting on the side of freedom and justice and God and all that good sh*t.

Sorry man, I don't mean to marginalize what you went through, but I get tired of hearing the propaganda. Some of my friends fought in that war but they seem to have at least come to terms with the truth, which makes it a lot easier to empathize with them.