This Isn’t Working Out (Allen West Statement)

#151
#151
Roustabout said:
Not even close. Both are big government, but the Dems have driven so far off the road it’s not even funny. When Tulsi Gabbard sounds like a right wing radical you know the Dems have lost control. That party has been hijacked. Regardless of what you say about Trump, at least republican voters went off script. And, a lot of Republican congressman came along.
Click to expand...
Yeah the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus highjacking of the Republican Party is so moderate 🙄
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#153
#153
Hey @Rasputin_Vol

Remember when you made the claim that voting for Hillary might speed up the demise of the Republic? Yeah, four years late, but probably on target.
 
#154
#154
OHvol40 said:
It sounds great when you’re just pouting over an election, but there isn’t a single state where a lone ideology reigns. We live amongst one another, we’re neighbors with different points of view. Better just get used to it instead of fighting it uselessly.
Click to expand...

No, we WILL fight it. We reject the idea of higher taxes. We reject the idea big tech censorship. We reject the idea that the government can tell us what types of firearms we can or can't own. We reject the idea of the green new deal and refuse to pay more for essential goods and services because of the massive hit the energy industry would take. We reject the idea that we, because of the far left environmental policies, would be forced to drive a vehicle that doesn't suit our needs. We flat out reject the idea of unity with the left because they fought tooth and nail over the last 4 years against everything that we tried to accomplish, therefore we will fight THEM tooth and nail. We reject the idea of open borders. Let's start investigations and special counsels to smear and frustrate the new presidential administration. No unity, because we do not respect your wants, opinions, or goals because you did/do not respect ours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, GSD82 and Orangeburst
#155
#155
volfanhill said:
You are a smart man. Of course there was fraud. On both sides. But you can't actually believe Trump won?
Click to expand...

I think there's enough evidence to do serious investigations into the alleged fraud in places where investigations will be impossible. Save maybe Georgia.

Sorry, but there is no way Biden pulled in 80 million votes. Not with the way Trump made significant inroads with all demographics across the board and there's no way that much excitement behind him led to states like Georgia and Arizona flipping.

This election was begging for fraud with all the mail in ballots. Now, nobody wants to do the checks they should be doing in places like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada.

Well, we got the fraud we so desperately wanted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, RavinDave, norrislakevol and 3 others
#156
#156
hog88 said:
What exactly is the “working class”?
Click to expand...

I’m reading skepticism about how the term is applied, but its very simple in my mind:

The working class is inclusive of all who earn an income based on their capacity to work.
 
#157
#157
OHvol40 said:
Yeah the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus highjacking of the Republican Party is so moderate 🙄
Click to expand...
Real radical
Summary"In The Tea Party: Three Principles, constitutional law professor Elizabeth Price Foley takes on the mainstream media's characterization of the American Tea Party movement, asserting that it has been distorted in a way that prevents meaningful political dialogue and may even be dangerous for America's future. Foley sees the Tea Party as a movement of principles over politics. She identifies three "core principles" of American constitutional law that bind the decentralized, wide-ranging movement: limited government, unapologetic U.S. sovereignty, and constitutional originalism. These three principles, Foley explains, both define the Tea Party movement and predict its effect on the American political landscape. Foley explains the three principles' significance to the American founding and constitutional structure. She then connects the principles to current issues as health care reform, illegal immigration, the war on terror, and internationalism"-- Provided by publisher.
Click to expand...
 
#160
#160
hog88 said:
So basically do away with the 1st amendment?
Click to expand...

Interesting response... i suppose i have to play detective to determine how you have managed to manifest a slight against the 1st Amendment somewhere in my post.

Let me guess: you think money is speech?

If that is not it, perhaps you could elaborate
 
#163
#163
Grand Vol said:
Kinda funny how words come around in history, you know?

E.G. how the word proletariat has come back around in certain circles, just not being used specifically.
Click to expand...
The next term to be applied to deplorables will be “zek”.
 
#165
#165
Remember how many liberals screeched against the insurrection talk when cities were burning to the ground?

House Democrat Calls To Exclude 126 Republicans From Next Congress For Supporting Texas Lawsuit

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) on Friday urged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to refuse to seat any of the 126 Republican House members who signed an amicus brief supporting a lawsuit aimed at overturning the results of the presidential election.

Pascrell, who has been among the most vocal proponents in Congress of investigations into President Trump, called on Pelosi in a letter to “exclude” any members who signed the brief, claiming they want to “tear the United States government apart.”

Pascrell cites Section 3 of the 14th amendment – which states that anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” cannot serve in federal office – claiming the lawsuit seeks to “obliterate public confidence in our democratic system” and that those who signed it committed “unbecoming acts that reflect poorly on our chamber.”
Click to expand...

Funny how they no longer cringe at that word.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and NorthDallas40
#168
#168
canitpro said:
Interesting response... i suppose i have to play detective to determine how you have managed to manifest a slight against the 1st Amendment somewhere in my post.

Let me guess: you think money is speech?

If that is not it, perhaps you could elaborate
Click to expand...

Donating money is speech. But what does that have to do with my question about “working class”? What is your definition of working class?
 
#171
#171
hog88 said:
Donating money is speech. But what does that have to do with my question about “working class”? What is your definition of working class?
Click to expand...

There you go - there is our disagreement. Money is currency, speech is an expression through articulate sounds - there is no overlap there

With money being the source of so much of the corruption in politics i’m not sure why ‘money is speech’ is still an opinion that is widely upheld by anyone who is not trying to game the system
 
#172
#172
canitpro said:
I already defined it for you, and you already responded to my definition. Income levels have no bearing on the definition I apply - Are we going in circles now?
Click to expand...
We’re still waiting on a definitive answer. Pardon us were slow so spell it out for us clearly
 
#173
#173
canitpro said:
There you go - there is our disagreement. Money is currency, speech is an expression through articulate sounds - there is no overlap there

With money being the source of so much of the corruption in politics i’m not sure why ‘money is speech’ is still an opinion that is widely upheld by anyone who is not trying to game the system
Click to expand...
And you’re wrong. The basic form is freedom of expression of which speech is an expression form. So is the usage of money. You’re narrowing 1a needlessly to support wherever the hell you’re going with all this
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and NEO
#174
#174
images

27-BerlinWall-Getty.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top