Leon

To go along with his mighty Space Force of course...

Slavery in 1861 aside , taking guns away by force is probably the only thing that could cause a civil war. If liberals attempted to take all guns away or enforce a magazine ban limiting guns to useless amounts of ammo for defense, and more than likely turned to using federal troops to supplement federal agents to get the guns ( despite being clearly banned from using troops for law enforcement) would this lead to civi war?

We all know liberals want to take ALL guns away from ALL Americans. That’s their goal and that’s their idea of gun control. At first it starts with taking away so called “assault rifles” then hand guns, then all rifles and shot guns. Everyone can see that’s what they want.

If this were to occur do you think a large number of gun owners would shoot back when federal agents or more likely federal troops are used to try and take them away? Or would they simply hide their guns, or would they surrender the weapons and thus surrender their right to self defense.

Criminals will always have guns ; guns will always be smuggled into the USA and even home machine shops can produce some guns (the original 7.62mm AK-47 was designed to be simple to manufacture) by taking away all guns or limiting them to a useless amount of rounds you eliminate the ability of the average person to defend themselves. Remember, liberals hate police as well and don’t believe in punishing criminals. No guns means no way to defend yourself.

Humans all humans have agendas, and biases. This is part of human nature. Through human history the media has always portrayed the news with a slant. “History is written by the victors” . I don’t understand how Liberals bash Fox for being biased, while CNN, MSNBC and just about every other media outlet EXCEPT FOX have a pretty obvious left leaning bias. I also don’t understand how conservatives can see that Fox is clearly biased toward the right as well.

My question I guess may not have an answer... is is possible to truly have news media that is unbiased? Or is that an impossibility, given human nature?

We all know that humans, even scientists all have a bias.

Fascism is by definition a right wing ideology; this has been proven and generally accepted by non partisan historians and even by Hitler and Mussolini themselves. The fact that NAZI stood for National Socialist Workers Party DOES NOT MAKE IT SOCIALIST— when Hitler took power over the NAZI party he PURGED the socialist element out of the party during the Night of the Long Knives... specifically he got rid of the Strassers - killed one and the other barely escaped. These were the biggest “socialist” proponents in the Nazi party. Hitler HATEF communism and socialism- he blamed the burning of the reichstag on the Social Democrats; he waged a war of annihilation on the Soviet Union. The Nazi government was corporatist— Krupp industries, (ThyssenKrupp today) I.G Farben, Porsche, Herschel and many many other companies made tons of money under the Nazis “State capitalism” model.

So why do conservatives and republicans keep insisting , despite historical fact that Nazis were and ARR a right wing movement? They fall on the right of the political spectrum as does all Fascism.

Since Florida tends to vote republicans and republicans don’t believe in helping any one in need, or anyone for that matter except themselves and since republicans oppose tax money going to help the less fortunate or to pay for any government services or programs, wouldn’t it be fitting if the House of Representatives blocked any aid to the state? Or maybe provide aid only to registered Democrat voters who are affected by the hurricane? Wouldn’t it be poetic justice to let the evil, greedy, selfish, republicans who get their lives ruined by the hurricane, suffer in misery?

An eye for an eye- they love using that. So why not give them a taste of their own medicine

Besides their god Trump will probably be too inept to help even if he wanted to

Libertarians literally promote anarchy; but not just anarchy , they want a corporatist society where corporations run the nation , there are no regulations of anything and everything is privatized. They essentially support the social Darwinist idea of “survival of the fittest” and think anyone who can’t become a millionaire or be independent should just die. In their world there would be child labor, unlimited work hours, no workplace safety regulations, no environmental regulations, no consumer protections, no labor rights, no unions, no government services. Police would be privatized if any, so would fire departments. Hospitals would be allowed to refuse treatment of patients who can’t pay, this letting the people die. Libertarians have a perverted view of the “free market”, they think the “freedom to die of starvation and poverty” is what should be the American dream.

How does this not fit the definition of a sociopath or of an evil person?

The lunatic wanted to eliminate social security, so no one could ever retire (we all know no one but millionaires make money from the stock market (401ks)), he wanted to eliminate the fbi the cia, privatize roads eliminate public schools and eliminate healthcare coverage for anyone who wasn’t a billionaire. The heartless monster felt anyone who wasn’t rich was a lazy person deserving of death.

His death deserves to be celebrated- to call his donations to the Republican Party and “charitable” causes that benefit him and his family only or something useless like the arts, is laughable. He gave 1.3 billion of his 50 billions. Virtually nothing. All the “Christian” Republicans and lunatic libertarians should remember the parable of the woman who gave all she had to charity versus the rich who gave and made it known they were giving. Guess who Jesus praises? It’s not the rich fvckrs

I would say- “You know feeling of the flames you felt when you sadly escaped being burnt to death in that 1991 plane crash? Well enjoy that feeling for eternity. Charles Koch- it’s time for you and your family to join your brother”

Speaking I’ll of the dead does not make the dead person automatically a saint. Saying bad things of Hitler didn’t make him a saint. Koch is not far from Hitler

I would say- “You know feeling of the flames you felt when you sadly escaped being burnt to death in that 1991 plane crash? Well enjoy that feeling for eternity. Charles Koch- it’s time for you and your family to join your brother”

Speaking I’ll of the dead does not make the dead person automatically a saint. Saying bad things of Hitler didn’t make him a saint. Koch is not far from Hitler

Modern feminism is anti male; with terms such as “toxic masculinity” implying that all forms masculine are evil, and terms like patriarchy, suggesting feminists would prefer a matriarchy, and this superior treatment not equal treatment and many feminist Authors such as Andrea Dworkin cloning “all heterosexual sex is rape”

How can feminist have any attraction to men? How can they like what they hate and view as oppressors?

Feminism is by definition anti male. Most lesbian s hate men as well - they hold it against a heterosexual male if he finds lesbians sexually stimulating, despite the lgbt claim that sexuality isn’t a choice, they hold it against straight men.

It this follows that since feminism is so virulently anti male, so bent on getting preferential treatment for women, that it would be incompatible for a feminist woman to be heterosexual.

Some very vocal and famous feminist leaders have also called all heterosexual sex rape.

When a woman such as most feminists claim all men are oppressors and use the term patriarchy as if it were evil (this implying they’d prefer a matriarchy) how can they still be sexually or emotionally attracted to men?

I have no problems with Gays and lesbians, but I will say most lesbians are very hostile to men; most gay men are NOT hostile to straight women. I imagine all lesbians are feminists and all feminists are lesbian, yet some won’t admit to themselves they are lesbian.

How can you have any relations with someone you hate and consider to be an evil oppressor?

Using phrases like “toxic masculinity” which implies that anything masculine is evil, and the term “patriarchy” in a negative way, which suggests they’d prefer a matriarchy, does not demonstrate a desire for “equality” but rather A) preferential treatment ; a desire for supremacy over men, and B) Revenge for perceived male “oppression”. Feminists also shame heterosexual men for having any form of sexual thought about women, yet embrace promiscuity for women. If a man looks at a half naked woman sexually for a split second, he is evil. Feminists glorify obesity in women and again shaming men and attempting to force men to find heavy and obese women attractive, but again if the man finds them attractive the man is evil because he has sexual feelings for a woman. Multiple feminists have called “all heterosexual sex rape Feminist hero’s like Andrea dworkin hate men

Women demand equal pay- this means men must voluntarily slash their pay for them to be paid equally. Would women do the same if the shoe was on the other foot? Would they go against their own best interests?

feminists take a tone and attitude when demanding “equality” much like dictators- “you must do this; you must THINK this way” you MUST change your preferences” any dissent or disagreement and they call the person sexist. They want to change the English language and again shame and punish if possible men who don’t use their approved language. How can you expect to convince some one by insulting them?

I’ve noticed that many if not most vegetarians and especially vegans are very arrogant self righteous and condescending with normal people who eat meat. I have no problem with them

Not eating meat or anything from animals, but what right do they have to try and force their philosophies on those who like tasty food ?

Animals aren’t sentient. Other animals eat meat, so why aren’t they out trying to teach a tiger to eat tofu?

For example if you come across a known Republican voter who is stranded at sea or is drowning? And you could leave and not get in trouble? I would tell the Republican “sorry I can’t help, you have to help yourself or I’d be strong a bad example” if they were drowning I’d then offer them a glass of water and leave.

Since republicans oppose helping the less fortunate in any meaningful way (charity is ineffective) or without tons of strings attached, I think it would be ironic for a Republican to be in a situation where their life being saved depends on another person or on emergency services provided by THE EVIL BIG GOVERNMENT and taxes...

What would you do?

How is it that Republicans many of whom call themselves “Christian” have no problem with people going into bankruptcy to stay alive or having to chose between death or bankruptcy? Why are they so selfish so greedy so lacking in empathy they can’t stand the thought of a small amount of tax money going to help another human being, to include them?

The Republican “solution” is the free market... this would be a disaster and already is. The U.K. , Canada and most of Europe has single payer system and NO you don’t wait 4 months to get a broken bone treated and yes you can get cancer treatment without waiting years or going bankrupt

Is there a reason other than a total lack of empathy, selfishness and greed why Republicans don’t want low income people to be able to afford decent healthcare?

Democrats keep saying Russians meddled in our elections; yet every time a democrat has become president defense spending gets cut severely. China now has a larger navy than the USA, they have hypersonic ballistic carrier killer missiles and Russia ha hypersonic cruise missiles as well. Both China and Russia have made huge advances in closing the quality gap between the USA and them, both Russia and China have superior cyber warfare capabilities and hackers. Our cyber defense consists of 4th rate imbeciles. They have top notch hackers. China and Russia have invested heavily in anti satellite capabilities. Our military would be totally useless if a few satellites got destroyed. China and Russia are somehow able to make a better military and spend less than we do. Our anti ship missiles are total garbage. The harpoon has garbage range and speed, compared to the Russian and Chinese missiles. The F-35 is a broken defective aircraft and can’t dogfight; something likely to happen when the Chinese shoot down all our satellites . We need more subs better -it craft better missiles, and MORE funding.

Are liberals so naive as to think China and Russia don’t want to destroy the USA and make the world safe for their hellish Orwellian 1984 authoritarian dominated world?

Neo Nazis need not reply... I am not Jewish, but a catholic who supports Israel and the Jewish people unconditionally.(And no I don’t want to convert them) Without Israel there would have been another holocaust, as it is the Muslim world has and does keep trying to exterminate Jews. The Netanyahu government is the only government strong enough to defend Jews and Israel. I don’t understand how so many American Jews can hate Israel... and yes criticism of Israel means a hatred of Israel and of Jews. History has proven that.