Second Civil War in USA

@moke123

Ok, then, is this "front page news in your book" ?

This actually IS cnn's top story - the #1 story of the day. :ROFLMAO:

1686926488033.png
 
Society's numerous experiments to try to replace the basics of faith in God and together-for-life marriages/families have all failed miserably.
Many studies show having a 2 parent home with no divorce is the greatest predictor of [insert just about any Happy metric here] that can occur.

Are we ready to get back to the basics yet? Or do we need more painful experiences first? I'm sensing a lot of society is actually ready to make the course correction, but there may be enough resistors to cause a few more years of pain first.
 
And who is setting that priority? Oh, its your perception of what needs to be a priority.
The priority was and still is being set by a left wing cabal news media. The media colluded to actively suppress stories that would damage the then Biden campaign and now Biden administration. The priorities of what stories were to be reported was not established by the readers of the media.
 
Rolling Stone's study,
Yea, except it wasn't a rolling stone study. It's a 12 year old study by a New Jersey University.



She told Newsweek that while the man was demanding proof that her daughter was born female, his wife called her and the girl's other mother "genital mutilators", "groomers" and "pedophiles."

Pretty sure they're not liberals.
 
@moke123

Ok, then, is this "front page news in your book" ?

This actually IS cnn's top story - the #1 story of the day. :ROFLMAO:

View attachment 108447

Must be an algorithm showing you things you are interested in. For me it was way down the bottom of the page under Pride Month.

Another stellar example of American greatness. Again I'm sure they weren't liberals.
 
Must be an algorithm showing you things you are interested in. For me it was way down the bottom of the page under Pride Month.

Another stellar example of American greatness. Again I'm sure they weren't liberals.

LOL nice try, but no ... CNN's webpage headlines are the same for everyone.

However, they do change every few minutes.
 
I thought this thread wasn't a serious proposition. But seeing what Tucker just revealed in this clip, I'm a bit concerned:-
When a hypothesized Civil War, evolves over time, from speculation to becoming physically "hot" is open for debate. The figurative "seeds" of what we are seeing today, in the US, were planted by the Obama administration. Obama was the "Manchurian Candidate". The unanticipated election of Trump dethroned the planned coronation of H.Clinton. The Democrats immediately moved to a Plan "B", which was to pursue a soft coup of the Trump administration. Early attempts such as Crossfire Hurricane, the Russia Hoax, the Mueller Witch-Hunt, and two unjustified impeachments fell short. One could say that this soft coup was eventually successful by manipulating the election process to install Biden as a figure head. Whether the hypothesized Civil War becomes physically "hot" or not is an unknown. But as Tucker pointed in the video above an in the video of Post #39 the Democrats are still aggressively pushing to establish a Stalinist like one-party state and are also actively using the justice system to pursue Beria's infamous strategy of "Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime." to cripple any Trump comeback.
 
Last edited:
I thought this thread wasn't a serious proposition. But seeing what Tucker just revealed in this clip, I'm a bit concerned:-

So Uncle Gizmo, just to let you know, even though these facts are undeniable, the Democrats have decided to label anyone who brings this up as a racist and they've decided that the whole thing has to do with white people not wanting brown people in the country. But of course that's not true at all, the problem is that the Democrats find ways to trick them into voting for them, thus they are automatic voters.

Anytime someone bitches to me about the so-called "racist great replacement theory", I always remind them that MATH IS ACTUALLY NOT A THEORY!
 
I guess this is the Democrat's version of "White supremacy"

1687376796936.png


Wait, actually there is no meaning to that term. It means anyone who opposes Democrat power.
 
I guess this is the Democrat's version of "White supremacy"
I thought it was the republican version of "Patriot" but in reality he's just the B.O.P.'s version of "Convict" At least for the next 12 1/2 years.

Article in our local paper today about banners, posters, and flyers appearing along the 50 mile corridor running through our county by the white supremacy group "Patriot Front"
 
I thought it was the republican version of "Patriot" but in reality he's just the B.O.P.'s version of "Convict" At least for the next 12 1/2 years.

Article in our local paper today about banners, posters, and flyers appearing along the 50 mile corridor running through our county by the white supremacy group "Patriot Front"

What makes Patriot Front white supremacist?

PS - this term has been applied a bit too liberally by some (not sure if you or not, just sayin) - to apply to any organization where they happen to be white, and are nationalistic. Which by the way...there is nothing wrong with whatsoever.
 
Don't you have google?

The men, who believe the United States is a nation that belongs only to white people, wear uniforms made up of bomber jackets, face coverings, and beige khakis, mandate weight loss and intense workouts, and regularly practice hand-to-hand combat. Some openly call themselves “supremacist” and revere Hitler and Mussolini.


Or are they the GOP version of antifa?
 
Don't you have google?




Or are they the GOP version of antifa?

Your reply illustrates the problem.

I see what the governors of wikipedia say, and I see what the ADL says.
We already know the ADL is a nonsense left wing organization that says everyone is a hate organization if they don't support the current leftwing fad, so I'll completely disregard that. Other sources are interesting, but not determinative.

What does Patriot Front say?

Why would you determine what an organization stands for from somewhere/someone other than the organization??

I don't ask Google what Moke thinks, I ask Moke. What moke tells me his opinion is is what his opinion is.

Give me something from Patriot Front that shows they are white supremacist?

And what in the world does protesting a Pride event have to do with "white supremacy" ??

Your arguments are usually quite a bit more compelling than this so I'll assume you're having a rough day or didn't have much time.
 
Another great example is the proud boys. I see every liberal and their brother acting as if anyone who is associated with the proud boys is bad.
But I don't necessarily see this as the case.

Yes, there have been some instances of proud boys doing bad things. But there have been instances of EVERY organization doing bad things.
My goodness......if everyone had categorized BLM based on the worst things their members did, they literally wouldn't have lasted a week!
But everyone was especially hesitant to do that because of the word 'black'. There was that privilege of "give them the benefit of the doubt", because ostensibly, their motives were good (even though week after week after week many of their actions were terrible, and arrests were many).

Ok, so the proud boys are proud of american heritage, mostly comprised of white people (and hispanics BTW), they hate the current status of immigration, and they're militia-leaning.

How does that make everyone of the proud boys bad? To me they look like an organization with good goals, and truthful sentiments, which is bound to attract a 10% bad. Kind of like you, @moke123 , probably view BLM.

But I don't go around labeling every black person who is proud of blacks, black power, and black culture to be "black supremacists". (Even though I believe some are, but it's not a common response to the phenomenon).

We need to reduce the # of truthful things that are taboo to say, so we can all talk freely and admit the truths that are currently 'forbidden' to discuss. Ironically, this is what libs call an "uncomfortable conversation".
 
Proud boys vs. Patriot Front



 
Can anyone explain to me what's going on here, I'm completely in the dark!



UG, it means that (whether or not the twitter video/event you posted actually is an example of this, I don't know and don't wish to spend any effort finding out particularly on this one), but it goes to the general ongoing major efforts by left-wingers to maintain and increase whatever momentum they had or thought they had (especially since George Floyd, who quite obviously changed the world with his awful and tragic death) with regards to promoting to the public, the idea that right-wing organizations and people are mostly racist "meanies" who hate [here insert anyone they think they can convince you of, although ironically, most of the items on this list can be pretty easily debunked by looking at actual facts, I can tell you more about this if interested in truth).

So for example, if the Proud Boys has a rally to encourage people to support American culture and American founding principles, and yes they may even dare suggest that European immigration not mass south american migration was what America was based on which is of course the Truth) ... you might have left-wingers show up to "infiltrate" the event and do something particularly reprehensible in everyone's eyes, in order to make people think for the cameras purpose, that the Proud Boys represents that behavior/idea/people.

In some cases they have been very open about it, (or very stupid and busted, I'm not sure which, but usually they are relatively smart, with the notable exception of Antifa, who are dumb as a bag of hammers), like this:

 
"The Timeless and Universal Truths and Principles About Order and Disorder That Are Most Relevant Now.
I believe that it is true for all people in all collective activities (sport, organizations, governments, etc.) that if…

a) there is no acceptable way to agree on what is probably true (e.g., there is no equivalent of instant replay in a sport) and…
b) both sides don’t trust the referees/judges because they believe that they are under the influence of the other side, and …
c) rather than judgements being made and enforced according to the rule book, they are made and enforced by the opinions of people that make up an unruly crowd…

…chaos and chaotic fighting will follow."
Ray Dalio
 
a) there is no acceptable way to agree on what is probably true (e.g., there is no equivalent of instant replay in a sport) and…
b) both sides don’t trust the referees/judges because they believe that they are under the influence of the other side, and …
c) rather than judgements being made and enforced according to the rule book, they are made and enforced by the opinions of people that make up an unruly crowd…

I think that's a very fair, well stated summary of the overall situation when it comes to so-called Facts vs. so-called misinformation, etc. etc.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom