(07-06-2020, 07:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 11:47 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 01:52 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-05-2020, 09:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-05-2020, 09:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You're wrong. Classic understands that there are many ways to be American and many ways to prove to others that one is an American and there are many races of Americans these days as well. You're right. The traditional black vs white, north vs south, rich vs poor, haves vs have nots are too vague and way too narrow to go by these days. You can if you want but you'll be crushed by America. Classic also understands that burning an American flag or dissing the American flag during the American anthem isn't a good way to gain American support or gain American sympathy these days either.

That has seemed to changed, although not in your right-wing, Trump-loving circles. Colin Kaepernick has been welcomed back into the NFL, and even the commissioner has apologized to him, and his gesture of kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality is being praised and copied instead of knocked now. He was ahead of his time.

The fact that you are worried about these symbols, while you ignore the reality of racial profiling and cops singling out unarmed black men like George Floyd and Elijah McClain for murder, gives broad and powerful hints about where your racial sympathies really lie. Also your defense of confederate monuments does this as well. Trump seemed to cater to the people who say exactly the same things that you do in his speech at Mt. Rushmore yesterday, but it is being condemned as dividing America and as stoking prejudice by many folks, as his approval rating drops to minus 14 points or more.

You still cannot define what you mean by what is American. All you can do is appeal to loyalty to national symbols and feelings of nationalist patriotism. The flag and the anthem can be important symbols, but what do they represent?

I don't care about what the NFL decides to do about Colin Kaepernic or whether some team decides to pay him a million to sit on the bench and watch a football game to make themselves look/feel  good. I know what I'm going to do this season. I'm going to do something else instead of watching football  this season. You shake them down and scare them by placing their most important assets at risk. We hurt them and hurt  liberal cities by making matters even  worse for them   at the same time. You just wait til we start getting more personal and begin refusing services and all kinds of other stuff that neither you, the government or the liberal media has control over. Like I've said, feeding a bunch of liberal fat cats to a bunch of wolves and teaching a bunch of preachy blue movie stars a harsh lesson about the difference us and them. You have an insurance policy and we have one too that we can back with guns. Like I said, have fun during the ugly 4T that we both know is coming.

We don't need to visit red states and counties if we don't wanna, so you can refuse service to those of us whom you can scope out to be visitors and city slickers or ethnically diverse, long-haired, etc. We'll just stay away and not patronize you. Meanwhile you can try to keep some of your agricultural products from the market, but that won't do you any good, and most farms are corporate and therefore not so concerned with cultural "American" symbols. And in places like California we have enough within our blue state borders to feed ourselves just fine. So your pressures will have little effect. We blue states and counties can do without your gun totin' backward hick redneck racist behaviors just fine.

You fucked up and called a fellow city slicker a redneck just like you've fucked up and called a fellow American who is color blind a racist just like you've fucked up and called an American patriot a Fascist. Like I said, if you would squawk less, preach less, dictate less and pay better attention and  learn for a change you'd figure out the difference between you and an American these days. You keep asking me what you should already know as an American. So, where does that leave you and the so called liberals these days.

(07-07-2020, 02:01 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 07:17 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 07:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You fucked up and called a fellow city slicker a redneck just like you've fucked up and called a fellow American who is color blind a racist just like you've fucked up and called an American patriot a Fascist. Like I said, if you would squawk less, preach less, dictate less and pay better attention and  learn for a change you'd figure out the difference between you and an American these days. You keep asking me what you should already know as an American. So, where does that leave you and the so called liberals these days.

Just to be clear, were you squawking, preaching or dictating just then?

Nope. You're wrong again. I was showing Eric all the mistakes he's made with Americans so far and that's just some of his more recent mistakes.

(07-07-2020, 05:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: "you are Eric" No, Classic Xer is not Eric! lol

I don't have much hope of reaching the Classic Xers and other trumpfiends. But, some people may listen to somebody, sometimes. It is the blue side that has the truth, but nothing is absolute except God. And even God manifests as all of us beings who are not.

(07-06-2020, 09:56 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: While many things showing the confederate battle flag or referencing Confederate officers are being struck down these days, it seems there is at least one thing immune.  CNN reports the car 'General Lee' from the Dukes of Hazzard TV show has not drawn any fire.

(07-07-2020, 09:38 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-07-2020, 05:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: "you are Eric" No, Classic Xer is not Eric! lol

I don't have much hope of reaching the Classic Xers and other trumpfiends. But, some people may listen to somebody, sometimes. It is the blue side that has the truth, but nothing is absolute except God. And even God manifests as all of us beings who are not.

In my youth I had a double worldview, one that chased between the engineer and the worshiper.  It came down to how the occult worked.  At one time I was chasing a theory that gods evolved, were competitive, competed for followers.  A god gave a minimum benefit in exchange for worship, emotion and belief.  At another time that shifted to your being more likely to observe the more emotional future.  As emotion increased, so did your metabolism, so did the number of many worlds realities generated, which changed the probability of observing something.

I guess one of the more simple problems with the usual religious or spiritual god was an old observation.  Omnipotent, omniscient or benevolent.  Pick two.  Going with all three was not consistent with the observed reality.

And yet, you allow your spirituality to alter how you perceive the world.  I don’t.  Once in a great while such as this post I will get a bit more detailed than ’devout agnostic’, but seriously changing another’s religious beliefs is about as likely as changing someone from blue to red or red to blue.

Not everyone shares your perception of God.  It would be more accurate to say there are as many perceptions as there are religions.  And yet, if your world view and values are religious or spiritual, you will alter the way you look at things to be consistent with your religious or spiritual understanding, or lack thereof.

Still, if we disagree on how we get there, we broadly agree on where we get.

(07-07-2020, 04:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-07-2020, 09:38 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-07-2020, 05:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: "you are Eric" No, Classic Xer is not Eric! lol

I don't have much hope of reaching the Classic Xers and other trumpfiends. But, some people may listen to somebody, sometimes. It is the blue side that has the truth, but nothing is absolute except God. And even God manifests as all of us beings who are not.

In my youth I had a double worldview, one that chased between the engineer and the worshiper.  It came down to how the occult worked.  At one time I was chasing a theory that gods evolved, were competitive, competed for followers.  A god gave a minimum benefit in exchange for worship, emotion and belief.  At another time that shifted to your being more likely to observe the more emotional future.  As emotion increased, so did your metabolism, so did the number of many worlds realities generated, which changed the probability of observing something.

I guess one of the more simple problems with the usual religious or spiritual god was an old observation.  Omnipotent, omniscient or benevolent.  Pick two.  Going with all three was not consistent with the observed reality.

And yet, you allow your spirituality to alter how you perceive the world.  I don’t.  Once in a great while such as this post I will get a bit more detailed than ’devout agnostic’, but seriously changing another’s religious beliefs is about as likely as changing someone from blue to red or red to blue.

Not everyone shares your perception of God.  It would be more accurate to say there are as many perceptions as there are religions.  And yet, if your world view and values are religious or spiritual, you will alter the way you look at things to be consistent with your religious or spiritual understanding, or lack thereof.

Still, if we disagree on how we get there, we broadly agree on where we get.

That's good. The point of my reply is that you implied that I think my views are absolute, but I don't really think my views could be absolutes. There is only one absolute, and that is God. So the point is, the absolute is something far greater than little ol me. St. Anselm defined God as the greatest that can be conceived. It seems a fair definition. Perceptions and knowledge of God varies according to our experience and knowledge. 

I can't change someone's religious or ideological beliefs with words on a computer screen, or by most any method. It is up to each of us how curious we are about things and what life teaches us, and whether we can shift our views or even our behavior in accordance with our discoveries and experience regarding the divine. It's not an easy path for anyone. 

In my case I was fortunate at least that my curiosity became strong at just the same time as a new generation and culture was in an explorative mood during an early Awakening. I thanks my lucky stars for that, and it became literally true for me when I discovered how the planets corresponded to my experience and the culture's simultaneous experience as well, predicting what the correspondence would be before looking it up and finding it there on the exact day I thought. Many people have been curious, or not so curious, to find out what they can about the spirit and the world, as their own needs, times and inclinations determine. There seems always more to discover and unfold. One of my musician friends wrote to explain his album, "through our Natural Wonder, we are constantly discovering ourselves"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lzm1mN4gN7E

(07-07-2020, 09:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: So, who made you and your ilk God.

(07-06-2020, 11:12 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 10:54 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: Robert E. Lee actually tried to reunify the country once the issue was decided.  There are many wo feel that the US will not survive this crisis as a 50 state nation at least. Makes you wonder if the southern states might try to reform the Confederacy. If so, would they be enlightened enough as to not attempt to re-form Jim Crow laws let alone slavery.  I would bet that they would be.  I can see the possibility of Alaska joining Canada and Hawaii becoming its own nation.  Many now question whether the idea of 50 states under one central government is any longer feasible.

This is worth remembering. General Robert E. Lee was an excellent general. Once he surrendered at Appomattox he made clear that the Confederate cause and slavery were dead beyond any recovery. He lived only five years after the Confederate defeat, and one can only imagine o- 

He did not like losing, of course, but note well that he opposed the "Lost Cause" violence against blacks. He advocated reconciliation and not resistance. The Klan cruelty was out of his sympathy. So give up slavery and go for a full recovery, whatever that took.

Lee is himself a tragic figure in American history... and far more complex than his image. One can obviously not confuse him with the proto-fascist Nathan Bedford Forrest.

(07-07-2020, 10:08 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-07-2020, 09:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: So, who made you and your ilk God.

He's partisan.  He is locked into one way of looking at things and believes it with absolute certainty.  He preaches the result.  He turns off those whose perspective conflicts.  He doesn't truly listen.

Of course, you are partisan too, and act much the same.

Yes, I could dream of partisans dropping their perspective for a bit and trying to see things though other eyes.  I just believe someone like you can't do it.

(07-07-2020, 01:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 10:54 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: Robert E. Lee actually tried to reunify the country once the issue was decided.  There are many wo feel that the US will not survive this crisis as a 50 state nation at least. Makes you wonder if the southern states might try to reform the Confederacy. If so, would they be enlightened enough as to not attempt to re-form Jim Crow laws let alone slavery.  I would bet that they would be.  I can see the possibility of Alaska joining Canada and Hawaii becoming its own nation.  Many now question whether the idea of 50 states under one central government is any longer feasible.

It's a good point. We have always been two countries, one a brutal supremacist nation longing for a past it tried to keep alive, and the other moving forward and eager to innovate. The division now is not as stark geographically as it once was, but it's still stark.

I considered the idea for a while that we should not have fought the civil war and should have just let the South go, and save all that bloodshed, and we should do the same now if they want to secede. I am wondering about that now. I thought if the South was left on its own, it would evolve and end slavery on its own eventually, maybe in 30-50 years. 

Now I don't think so, again. After all, they did maintain white supremacy for another 100 years after the civil war, and to this day the southern and redneck whites vote to keep blacks in their place with Reaganomics and by electing a reactionary culture warrior as their president. The Confederates resisted emancipation because the slaves were valuable property in a productive economic system, as well as being what they conceived of as an inferior race that should not be freed, thus disrupting their established feudal aristocratic society of privilege. It was a matter of property rights over human rights.

So, I guess the civil war, I hate to say it, was necessary. It was so bloody largely because they had a brilliant general named Robert E. Lee who thought he could beat a more populous and better equipped nation in a conventional rather than a guerrilla war like others have fought against the USA since then. It was bloody because the white southerners were passionately dedicated to their evil cause, just as many of them are passionately dedicated to evil to this very day, as they wear their red MAGA hats, cheer their insane leader, tote their weapons and carry their confederate battle flags. 

So, we might fight again. We might still separate. Or we might simply decay and die because we have been unwilling to bravely and heroically put the Southern and Redneck regions in their place, and realize where they belong. Or perhaps the blue side will win again politically without violence, and then enough people in the red areas will decide that progress is better than misplaced passion, and the few remaining violent rebels if any can be easily dealt with. We'll see.

(07-07-2020, 11:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: So, how should a partisan/patriotic/ God believing American act these days? Are you God? Are you dumb enough to tell me how to act? You are as partisan as he is, you just try to make it seem like you're not at times for your own sake. You're not listening to me. You probably should but you're not. You're to busy picking on absent Klan members or Neo Nazi members or White Supremacists in general and associating me with them as thousands of Leftists are burning down portions of cities and destroying people lives and killing people and tearing down American monuments and attacking American law enforcement like crazy. IF YOU WANT LAWLESS WE"LL GIVE YOU LAWLESSNESS AND KILL EVERY FUCKING ONE OF YOU AND SHIP WHAT"S LEFT OF THE SURVIVORS TO A MUCH NASTIER PLACE TO LIVE AND NEVER FORGET HOW BAD LIVING IN HELL IS.

(07-07-2020, 02:08 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 09:41 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 03:39 AM)taramarie Wrote: Astrology is Eric's profession as far as i know so of course he will discuss it and inject it into his "findings" regarding the political topics that you guys discuss. I do not see that much discussion about dogs, but pbrower mentioned his reason for bringing up dogs so he can answer that better than i can as i only mentioned dogs in south africa as that was brought up and i have experience in south africa. As for violence and xenophobia....this is the 4T and there is violence partly because of xenophobia as well as other various outrages going on in your country which are splitting the population into pieces. Also i believe it could be a feeling of needs not being met/heard or understood and the only way to get those needs met is a feeling of having to take action even if it means violence at times. I feel this going on within both sides politically in your country going by what people say and how it is said. It is a 4T so obviously that will happen. I just hope it does not end up as another civil war. More than likely not. I hope so anyway. "Odd areas of interest" may be a call out for the need to bring attention to a need as well as a simple interest. Perhaps listen to the message behind those interests?

You did catch a few poster's specific interests, ones which I have grown past.  I suppose it just itches in my case because I have grown past them.  I know just enough to catch some errors and engage.

But the violence?  It was common...  in the Industrial Age and before.  This is not the Industrial Age or before.  The ones I find obsessed with violence and xenophobia seem to be dwelling in the past, are conservative, are really reluctant to change, are least able to see how things changed at the age boundary.  War and violence are not cost effective or necessary anymore.  We are absurdly slow to figure this out, especially the more conservative among us.  Watching them type that we have always had a crisis war before therefor they will be disappointed that they will not find a nuke going off just above their heads is more than a little off.

Well it is them. Their interests and needs. If you wish to converse with them, you will have to accept that this is a part of them. Just like when i start talking about New Zealand because it is a part of who i am. It is good however that you realize why it irks you. As for no need for war and violence, that depends on what will happen in the future actually. In a hypothetical situation and i do mean this is hypothetical, what if a country decided to take over just as the nazi's did. Would the USA just roll over and say nah war and violence is not necessary anymore. Yes it is not cost effective. Not at all. But the cost if for example that vaguely mentioned country who decided to take over countries including for example yours, would the cost of not doing anything be higher? Really i think it is a good consideration to take into account. That country wanting to take over may be pushing for an agenda that your country folk would not agree with at all. This is under the assumption that talk has no effect here at all and war is needed in this case to push back people forcing their agenda on people physically. I think sometimes it is needed, but should be done ONLY when there is no other option and other ways of resolving issues have not worked. It should be a last resort move.

(07-08-2020, 12:13 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If the liberals take over that's what they'll do, they'd either roll over or attempt to appease by turning a blind eye or reluctantly going along like they did with Hitler. Today, we have the benefit of hindsight. We can decide whether America needs Churchill (Trump) or Chamberlain (Bumbling Lovable Biden) right now. Right now, we have a bunch of liberal wimps and wimpy professional people pleasers in power and what you are seeing here is the result.

(07-08-2020, 12:13 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If the liberals take over that's what they'll do, they'd either roll over or attempt to appease by turning a blind eye or reluctantly going along like they did with Hitler. Today, we have the benefit of hindsight. We can decide whether America needs Churchill (Trump) or Chamberlain (Bumbling Lovable Biden) right now. Right now, we have a bunch of liberal wimps and wimpy professional people pleasers in power and what you are seeing here is the result.

(07-08-2020, 12:12 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Well, first I don’t want lawlessness.  You are the one who keeps threatening violence and lawlessness.  It shows you lie and do not listen.

Second, you are the coward still obsessed with violence as to make empty threats, not me.

Third, I can make suggestions, but I hardly think you will listen.  Why should I expect you to start now?  You are too partisan, too locked into your perspective, too incapable of change.  I would as soon try to make Eric give up astrology.  I’d have as good a chance at success.

Fourth…. That is the debatable one.  I hold there to be much distinction between a scientific mind set, and a partisan political one.  The primary difference is checking a scientific system against reality, and if they don’t match you change the scientific system.  The partisan does not change his system.  He becomes ideologically blind to those facts which contradict his partisan perspective.  He deals with a partial reality, if that.

For example, if have repeatedly suggest you distinguish between the lawful protesters and the looters who need a healthy dose of law and order.  No matter how many times I repeat it, your shtick is to lump the two together.  I started out paying attention mostly to the protesters and agreed with them, but a bit in, following suggestions from Governor Cuomo and Rachel Maddow, I changed my system to reflect the difference in motivation and the proper response.  On the other hand, you still haven’t.

Which reflects what can only be called a lie on your part.  In advocating a law and order response to the looters, I am showing one place where I agree with you.  But you do not listen even to agreement.

And, sure, the Boogaloo Bois (who do lean Marxist in my view or at least towards violence), and the racist violent police (which are not all the police) both need to be confronted verbally and if they break the law.  The KKK of this incarnation, the Nazi and the protestors tend not to break the law, but more often are exercising their right to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance.  There is an old saying about not agreeing with a word they say, but defending the right to say it.  It applies to the KKK and Nazi.  (This says nothing of the KKK of earlier centuries, who were often into terrorist violence, not to mention the Nazi of the last century.)  

Now only some of the police are into the terrorist violence.

I guess a scientific worldview and values has more complexity, generates more distinction.   You act against lawbreakers with the law, and this includes towards racist violent police.  You let the petitioners petition, and this might include the lawful elements of the KKK and Nazi who I do not agree with.  If your partisan perspective does not allow you to see the difference, your theory goes haywire bonkers.

If you think it would increase the clarity, you are allowed to edit my post to lace it with all caps and obscenity.  It is just not my style.

(07-08-2020, 12:13 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-07-2020, 02:08 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 09:41 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-06-2020, 03:39 AM)taramarie Wrote: Astrology is Eric's profession as far as i know so of course he will discuss it and inject it into his "findings" regarding the political topics that you guys discuss. I do not see that much discussion about dogs, but pbrower mentioned his reason for bringing up dogs so he can answer that better than i can as i only mentioned dogs in south africa as that was brought up and i have experience in south africa. As for violence and xenophobia....this is the 4T and there is violence partly because of xenophobia as well as other various outrages going on in your country which are splitting the population into pieces. Also i believe it could be a feeling of needs not being met/heard or understood and the only way to get those needs met is a feeling of having to take action even if it means violence at times. I feel this going on within both sides politically in your country going by what people say and how it is said. It is a 4T so obviously that will happen. I just hope it does not end up as another civil war. More than likely not. I hope so anyway. "Odd areas of interest" may be a call out for the need to bring attention to a need as well as a simple interest. Perhaps listen to the message behind those interests?

You did catch a few poster's specific interests, ones which I have grown past.  I suppose it just itches in my case because I have grown past them.  I know just enough to catch some errors and engage.

But the violence?  It was common...  in the Industrial Age and before.  This is not the Industrial Age or before.  The ones I find obsessed with violence and xenophobia seem to be dwelling in the past, are conservative, are really reluctant to change, are least able to see how things changed at the age boundary.  War and violence are not cost effective or necessary anymore.  We are absurdly slow to figure this out, especially the more conservative among us.  Watching them type that we have always had a crisis war before therefor they will be disappointed that they will not find a nuke going off just above their heads is more than a little off.

Well it is them. Their interests and needs. If you wish to converse with them, you will have to accept that this is a part of them. Just like when i start talking about New Zealand because it is a part of who i am. It is good however that you realize why it irks you. As for no need for war and violence, that depends on what will happen in the future actually. In a hypothetical situation and i do mean this is hypothetical, what if a country decided to take over just as the nazi's did. Would the USA just roll over and say nah war and violence is not necessary anymore. Yes it is not cost effective. Not at all. But the cost if for example that vaguely mentioned country who decided to take over countries including for example yours, would the cost of not doing anything be higher? Really i think it is a good consideration to take into account. That country wanting to take over may be pushing for an agenda that your country folk would not agree with at all. This is under the assumption that talk has no effect here at all and war is needed in this case to push back people forcing their agenda on people physically. I think sometimes it is needed, but should be done ONLY when there is no other option and other ways of resolving issues have not worked. It should be a last resort move.

If the liberals take over that's what they'll do, they'd either roll over or attempt to appease by turning a blind eye or reluctantly going along like they did with Hitler. Today, we have the benefit of hindsight. We can decide whether America needs Churchill (Trump) or Chamberlain (Bumbling Lovable Biden) right now. Right now, we have a bunch of liberal wimps and wimpy professional people pleasers in power and what you are seeing here is the result.

(07-08-2020, 12:58 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Me telling you over and over again that I'm going to respond to violence with violence is not a lie, it's a promise.

(07-08-2020, 12:58 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You don't want lawlessness. Are you sure about that these days? What if the lawless people among your ranks want lawlessness and there aren't enough of you to do much about it and your worthless politicians aren't up to the task or view them as part of their political base?

(07-08-2020, 12:58 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-08-2020, 12:12 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Well, first I don’t want lawlessness.  You are the one who keeps threatening violence and lawlessness.  It shows you lie and do not listen.

Second, you are the coward still obsessed with violence as to make empty threats, not me.

Third, I can make suggestions, but I hardly think you will listen.  Why should I expect you to start now?  You are too partisan, too locked into your perspective, too incapable of change.  I would as soon try to make Eric give up astrology.  I’d have as good a chance at success.

Fourth…. That is the debatable one.  I hold there to be much distinction between a scientific mind set, and a partisan political one.  The primary difference is checking a scientific system against reality, and if they don’t match you change the scientific system.  The partisan does not change his system.  He becomes ideologically blind to those facts which contradict his partisan perspective.  He deals with a partial reality, if that.

For example, if have repeatedly suggest you distinguish between the lawful protesters and the looters who need a healthy dose of law and order.  No matter how many times I repeat it, your shtick is to lump the two together.  I started out paying attention mostly to the protesters and agreed with them, but a bit in, following suggestions from Governor Cuomo and Rachel Maddow, I changed my system to reflect the difference in motivation and the proper response.  On the other hand, you still haven’t.

Which reflects what can only be called a lie on your part.  In advocating a law and order response to the looters, I am showing one place where I agree with you.  But you do not listen even to agreement.

And, sure, the Boogaloo Bois (who do lean Marxist in my view or at least towards violence), and the racist violent police (which are not all the police) both need to be confronted verbally and if they break the law.  The KKK of this incarnation, the Nazi and the protestors tend not to break the law, but more often are exercising their right to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance.  There is an old saying about not agreeing with a word they say, but defending the right to say it.  It applies to the KKK and Nazi.  (This says nothing of the KKK of earlier centuries, who were often into terrorist violence, not to mention the Nazi of the last century.)  

Now only some of the police are into the terrorist violence.

I guess a scientific worldview and values has more complexity, generates more distinction.   You act against lawbreakers with the law, and this includes towards racist violent police.  You let the petitioners petition, and this might include the lawful elements of the KKK and Nazi who I do not agree with.  If your partisan perspective does not allow you to see the difference, your theory goes haywire bonkers.

If you think it would increase the clarity, you are allowed to edit my post to lace it with all caps and obscenity.  It is just not my style.

Me telling you over and over again that I'm going to respond to violence with violence is not a lie, it's a promise. You don't want lawlessness. Are you sure about that these days? What if the lawless people among your ranks want lawlessness and there aren't enough of you to do much about it and your worthless politicians aren't up to the task or view them as part of their political base?