TexasCHLforum.com

I find it hard to believe these young radicals calling for open rebellion forcing their left wing ideology on the rest of the country through bloody violence. The vision of a bunch of angry kids, with no emotional control who burst into tears under stress, who hate guns and have little or no experience with them, and they want to start a civil war with people like us! Surely there is something wrong with that picture? If such a thing ever came to pass do they have any idea what they would be up against? They should be grateful we believe in the rule of law because if that disappears I don't think they would like what they saw.

Every one of these special snowflakes' idea of "open rebellion" is sitting back and watching on TV as someone else does the fighting and dying.

Special Snowflake wrote:What? You make it sound like that's not the way it works. What kind of idiot are you?

Noggin wrote:I find it hard to believe these young radicals calling for open rebellion forcing their left wing ideology on the rest of the country through bloody violence. The vision of a bunch of angry kids, with no emotional control who burst into tears under stress, who hate guns and have little or no experience with them, and they want to start a civil war with people like us! Surely there is something wrong with that picture? If such a thing ever came to pass do they have any idea what they would be up against? They should be grateful we believe in the rule of law because if that disappears I don't think they would like what they saw.

They are not young radicals! They neither know, nor are they mature, enough to be radicals. They are just a bunch of ill conceived spoiled brats, many irresponsibly living on student loans, exemplifying why the voting age should have never been lowered EXCEPT for those serving in active military.

Noggin wrote:I find it hard to believe these young radicals calling for open rebellion forcing their left wing ideology on the rest of the country through bloody violence. The vision of a bunch of angry kids, with no emotional control who burst into tears under stress, who hate guns and have little or no experience with them, and they want to start a civil war with people like us! Surely there is something wrong with that picture? If such a thing ever came to pass do they have any idea what they would be up against? They should be grateful we believe in the rule of law because if that disappears I don't think they would like what they saw.

No, they just want a large federal government to declare the result of the election invalid and crush anyone who dares oppose them with overwhelming force, all while they sit at home and don't have to lift a finger or deal with those "icky guns".

Most likely these protests are organized and funded by the losing side of the election.

Marching because your civil rights were violated is protesting.

Marching and rioting because you didn't get you way is just crying.

The Progressives have successfully conflated citizenship (as a US citizen) as a human right rather than a privilege in the consciousness of many. Properly viewed, citizenship is a privilege afforded those who have obtained it under the rules or rulers as they exist at the time. Unlike human rights, citizenship can be revoked -- often for cause. Citizenship can also not be granted to those seeking it, also for cause. Being somewhere because you were able to get there -- even staying somewhere for a while -- does not confer (a supposed right of) citizenship.

Due to the success of the Progressive messaging, the programmed folks around us "fear" that everyone who has immigrated over the last quarter century, whether legally or not, will be deported. They haven't bothered to listen to what has been said by Trump, only what they have been told that it means. Because of Obama's success in some areas, they also believe that the Presidency is a cult of personality that gives them amazing powers. Obama was successful in pushing many Progressive agenda items because nobody had the fortitude to call him when he overstepped the bounds of Executive power. Trump will not have such lee-way because he is 1. male, 2. white, and 3. against the political class establishment.

While I think it is wonderful for people to peacefully protest whatever they'd like, I also think many protests and the people taking part in them are misguided. Protesting election results falls into this misguided category. Now, when protests involve vandalism, destruction of property, violence, or even the suggestion of violence, they are becoming criminal activities and should be dealt with accordingly. These "rebellious" protestors should be very careful. If they are lucky they'll just get arrested and charged for their crimes. If they are not so lucky they may find out why the side best prepared is favored to win in a rebellion.

Oldgringo wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:All of this is the natural byproduct of people placing a higher value on their grievance identity than on their citizenship.......or on obtaining citizenship if they don't already have it. They are more interested in carving their own place in the world, than they are in being part of the greatest nation in world history.

Frankly, I'm not surprised, as there are also plenty of people on the social/political right who are beginning to feel the same way. And I think this emphasis on assigning a higher value to one's grievance identity rather than on citizenship is itself the natural byproduct of a leviathan fedgov't which has grown too large to either be responsive to the needs of the citizenry, or protective the rights of the citizenry.

...and/or an entrenched political party that will do/say anything for votes.

And once your vote is given they will promptly stab you in the back

rotor wrote:. If it is federally illegal it should be state illegal. If we want to change it it needs to be done at the federal level first, for example marijuana. I am not for legalizing it but if the states want to legalize it than it must be removed first from the federal laws making it illegal. All of those states that just voted marijuana in may be in for a surprise if the feds uphold the illegality of it, and they should. If it is illegal than it is illegal. Of course, the laws can be changed and then states can do what they want.

Curious, why aren't you pro legalization? I don't smoke it and have no desire to smoke it. However if I did, it's less than a phone call away at any given time despite its illegality. The federal and state governments spend billions a year fighting pot and locking people up for possession (not just intent to distribute). Tax it like the other states do and use that money for good cause. One year of legalization and taxes covers the cost of a mighty long and high wall.

Skiprr wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Putting aside the irony that they are in agreement with sheriff Joe Arpaio....

You mean ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio. Unfortunately, on Tuesday Sheriff Joe lost his bid for a seventh term in Maricopa County. He lost to Democrat Paul Penzone.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/loc ... /93534098/

Sheriff Joe's loss appears to have had significant outside support.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/g ... ona-230724

Morbidrealities wrote:

rotor wrote:. If it is federally illegal it should be state illegal. If we want to change it it needs to be done at the federal level first, for example marijuana. I am not for legalizing it but if the states want to legalize it than it must be removed first from the federal laws making it illegal. All of those states that just voted marijuana in may be in for a surprise if the feds uphold the illegality of it, and they should. If it is illegal than it is illegal. Of course, the laws can be changed and then states can do what they want.

Curious, why aren't you pro legalization? I don't smoke it and have no desire to smoke it. However if I did, it's less than a phone call away at any given time despite its illegality. The federal and state governments spend billions a year fighting pot and locking people up for possession (not just intent to distribute). Tax it like the other states do and use that money for good cause. One year of legalization and taxes covers the cost of a mighty long and high wall.

One more intoxicant to fight on the highways. Mature adults in the privacy of their homes could probably handle it but I see this like alcohol, many more highway deaths. And we have the lung problems for smoking it, a new bunch of chronic lungers to deal with. I vacillate all the time about legalizing it. It has to be done on a federal level first though if it is to be legal.

rotor wrote:

Morbidrealities wrote:

rotor wrote:. If it is federally illegal it should be state illegal. If we want to change it it needs to be done at the federal level first, for example marijuana. I am not for legalizing it but if the states want to legalize it than it must be removed first from the federal laws making it illegal. All of those states that just voted marijuana in may be in for a surprise if the feds uphold the illegality of it, and they should. If it is illegal than it is illegal. Of course, the laws can be changed and then states can do what they want.

Curious, why aren't you pro legalization? I don't smoke it and have no desire to smoke it. However if I did, it's less than a phone call away at any given time despite its illegality. The federal and state governments spend billions a year fighting pot and locking people up for possession (not just intent to distribute). Tax it like the other states do and use that money for good cause. One year of legalization and taxes covers the cost of a mighty long and high wall.

One more intoxicant to fight on the highways. Mature adults in the privacy of their homes could probably handle it but I see this like alcohol, many more highway deaths. And we have the lung problems for smoking it, a new bunch of chronic lungers to deal with. I vacillate all the time about legalizing it. It has to be done on a federal level first though if it is to be legal.

Good argument!

RoyGBiv wrote:I'm feeling a little this way today...



And I'd like to find one of these protest rallys so I can stand along the route and post this sign....

Sign.jpg

I am stealing and facebooking that!

Oldgringo wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:All of this is the natural byproduct of people placing a higher value on their grievance identity than on their citizenship.......or on obtaining citizenship if they don't already have it. They are more interested in carving their own place in the world, than they are in being part of the greatest nation in world history.

Frankly, I'm not surprised, as there are also plenty of people on the social/political right who are beginning to feel the same way. And I think this emphasis on assigning a higher value to one's grievance identity rather than on citizenship is itself the natural byproduct of a leviathan fedgov't which has grown too large to either be responsive to the needs of the citizenry, or protective the rights of the citizenry.

...and/or an entrenched political party that will do/say anything for votes.

Most definitely that too.

bblhd672 wrote:Most likely these protests are organized and funded by the losing side of the election.

Most likely they are organized and funded by George Soros and his splinter groups which were doing the DNC's dirty work during the campaigns.