Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

AG Jeff Sessions unloads on Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.

tennmiketennmike Senior MemberPosts: 27,338 Senior Member
Jeff Sessions was a scrappy fighter in his hearing today. He also crossed swords with that idiot from California, Kamala Harris, too. She got called down AGAIN by the Committee Chairman for her refusing to allow a witness to finish a statement. She's a worthless shrew, but then, she IS a Liberal Democrat.

Sessions and Wyden exchange:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMY0wXXeW2E

Sessions and Harris exchange:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHM0dShjIWE
  I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
― Douglas Adams
«1

Replies

  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,651 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I've been taking breaks to watch these proceedings and the most glaring thing that comes across, for the most part Republicans ask logical and precise questions. Democrats feel that they need to load their time with unfounded assertions and insinuations while leading their questions with questionable assumptions. In a court of law they would be "objected" to on just about every statement.

    Speaking of a court of law, a couple of those people acted like they were in a court, prosecuting just another dirtbag.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,500 Senior Member
    Kamala Harris is a large part of the problem with gun rights in Commiefornia.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • Big Al1Big Al1 Senior Member Posts: 7,789 Senior Member
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Big Al1 wrote: »
    This Kamala??

    Nope- - - -that one looks better than the congress-critter!

    The only better way he could have "unloaded" would have been with a 1911!
    Jerry
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,338 Senior Member
    Sessions used the word 'scurrilous' to describe the accusations made by some of his detractors. I giggled when he said that, seriously. It isn't a word used much nowadays, but it sure fits the use to which he put it!

    I hear Kamala Harris was some sort of district attorney, or some such, out in California. She appears to be a legend in her own mind. This is around the third or fourth time a committee chairman has called her down and made her shut her cake hole and let the witness at the hearing answer. If she keeps that up she may find herself thrown out of the hearing one day. Her total lack of respect for the people that are testifying in those hearings makes me wish one of them would stand up and unload on her like a Marine D.I. would to a snowflake recruit that screwed up. I'd pay some $$$$ to see that happen! :roll2:
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 20,968 Senior Member
    I saw parts of it today. I was :rotflmao: at the way the AG handled some of them.

    I love hearing some of the Dims (yes I meant to spell it that way) refer to him as racist, considering as a prosecutor here, he basically shut down the KKK in Alabama. They're still here, but only as a shadow of what they were before Sessions got ahold of them. He's a FEISTY little bulldog :applause:

    Who freaks me out every time I see how his right ear sticks out so much more than the left, he makes me think of an elf or sprite
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    I've loved Jeff Sessions since the first time I ever saw him on TV. Every state should have a couple like him. He's what I call "A Great American!" And he told that Pook Wyden how the Cow ate the Cabbage! That libtard got a good lesson on messing with a Good Southern Gentleman. Just because a Southerner acts polished and tries to show his better side most of the time, Don't underestimate him or he'll set you in your place. Iffin you don't believe me, ask Wyden!

    :rotflmao::roll2::rotflmao::roll2::rotflmao:
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Too bad he didn't get to lob a salvo or three at the commiefornia beeyotch before somebody had the good sense to tell her to put a sock in it. Now all the usual suspects are sobbing "sexism" because they shut her down. Fork 'em all!
    :devil:
    Jerry
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    I've loved Jeff Sessions since the first time I ever saw him on TV. Every state should have a couple like him. He's what I call "A Great American!" And he told that Pook Wyden how the Cow ate the Cabbage! That libtard got a good lesson on messing with a Good Southern Gentleman. Just because a Southerner acts polished and tries to show his better side most of the time, Don't underestimate him or he'll set you in your place. Iffin you don't believe me, ask Wyden!

    :rotflmao::roll2::rotflmao::roll2::rotflmao:
    Oregon has 2 US Senators. Both hard core Democrats. I tolerated Ron Wyden because he supported and even assisted our military members. I corresponded with him several times concerning military personnel with problems receiving benefits and he always helped them. I was able to thank him personally a decade or so ago. He sent me one of the US capitol flown flags with a certificate of appreciation when I retired. He lost me when he voted for the UN arms trade treaty and has been a typical libtard since the 2016 elections. Our other senator Jeff Merkley is a useless idiot.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,651 Senior Member
    sgtrock21 wrote: »
    .................. Our other senator Jeff Merkley is a useless idiot.

    As is most members of the Democrack party!
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    I've loved Jeff Sessions since the first time I ever saw him on TV. Every state should have a couple like him. He's what I call "A Great American!" And he told that Pook Wyden how the Cow ate the Cabbage! That libtard got a good lesson on messing with a Good Southern Gentleman. Just because a Southerner acts polished and tries to show his better side most of the time, Don't underestimate him or he'll set you in your place.


    Sessions is a disingenuous tool. He just asked congress to let him wage war on the 29 states (and DC) with medical marijuana. You would think the DOJ would have better things to do with our money.

    Sessions can piss off.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,338 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Sessions is a disingenuous tool. He just asked congress to let him wage war on the 29 states (and DC) with medical marijuana. You would think the DOJ would have better things to do with our money.

    Sessions can piss off.

    Then the 29 states (a simple majority) can petition the government to remove marijuana from the Drug Enforcement Act as a controlled substance. That would be the legal and sane way to handle the marijuana situation. As it is, Federal Law is overriding over state laws in most instances.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Supremacy+Clause

    Supremacy Clause

    Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.


    Your argument is the same as the sanctuary city/state argument, and is invalidated by the supremacy clause of the Constitution.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Then the 29 states (a simple majority) can petition the government to remove marijuana from the Drug Enforcement Act as a controlled substance. That would be the legal and sane way to handle the marijuana situation. As it is, Federal Law is overriding over state laws in most instances.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Supremacy+Clause

    Supremacy Clause

    Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.


    Your argument is the same as the sanctuary city/state argument, and is invalidated by the supremacy clause of the Constitution.



    I added the bold. I'm reading the Constitution and I'm trying find where the Feds have enumerated power to regulate plants or intoxicants for that matter. :troll:

    There is a difference between sanctuary nonsense and medical MJ.

    The Rohrabacher-Farr budget amendment protects medicinal MJ from being prosecuted by the Feds. Sessions asked congress to remove the amendment so he could go after medicinal weed. Congress told him to piss off. I can't figure out his weed-****. There's real crime, record opioid deaths, and 20M illegals. He should let the Reefer Madness go.

    I can see him hammering the recreational markets in CO and WA.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,338 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    I added the bold. I'm reading the Constitution and I'm trying find where the Feds have enumerated power to regulate plants or intoxicants for that matter. :troll:

    There is a difference between sanctuary nonsense and medical MJ.

    The Rohrabacher-Farr budget amendment protects medicinal MJ from being prosecuted by the Feds. Sessions asked congress to remove the amendment so he could go after medicinal weed. Congress told him to piss off. I can't figure out his weed-****. There's real crime, record opioid deaths, and 20M illegals. He should let the Reefer Madness go.

    I can see him hammering the recreational markets in CO and WA.

    You related to Don Quixote? I'm referring to that bolded part you added. Time for you to be honest with yourself and admit that the Federal Government has taken control of a LOT of things not enumerated in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld most every usurpation. Whining about it does no good. Actually getting the states on board to get marijuana removed from the list of illegal controlled substances is a REAL and VIABLE solution. Getting all PMS about water over the dam doesn't bring it back. There is the right and possible way to do things, and there is the inconvenient, and Federally illegal way to do things. Take your pick, and then determine whether the risk for the latter is worth the reward.

    And there is no difference between illegal use of recreational marijuana and sanctuary cities. Both are illegal under federal law. The medical marijuana has been given a pass(made into Federal law) because of real data showing its worth as a medical substance with real positive effects.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    You related to Don Quixote? I'm referring to that bolded part you added. Time for you to be honest with yourself and admit that the Federal Government has taken control of a LOT of things not enumerated in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld most every usurpation. Whining about it does no good. Actually getting the states on board to get marijuana removed from the list of illegal controlled substances is a REAL and VIABLE solution. Getting all PMS about water over the dam doesn't bring it back. There is the right and possible way to do things, and there is the inconvenient, and Federally illegal way to do things. Take your pick, and then determine whether the risk for the latter is worth the reward.

    And there is no difference between illegal use of recreational marijuana and sanctuary cities. Both are illegal under federal law. The medical marijuana has been given a pass(made into Federal law) because of real data showing its worth as a medical substance with real positive effects.


    Dude, I put a troll in there because I know full well what the Feds and SCOTUS have done with the Constitution over the years. I also know gun laws at the state level are an exception to the Supremacy Clause. Maybe you can condescendingly explain to me how the states can get away with creating laws contrary to the 2A.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • 6EQUJ5 - WOW!6EQUJ5 - WOW! Banned Posts: 482 Member
    Tonight I'm going to watch that old movie "The Russian's are Coming! The Russian's are Coming!" After that, I think I'll watch Red Dawn followed by the Hunt for Red October. Afterwards, I'll relax with some Russian vodka and work on my fallout shelter and practice nuclear attack drills. :silly:

    Edit: Oh yeah! "No Way Out" is on the movie list as well. . . .
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,338 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Dude, I put a troll in there because I know full well what the Feds and SCOTUS have done with the Constitution over the years. I also know gun laws at the state level are an exception to the Supremacy Clause. Maybe you can condescendingly explain to me how the states can get away with creating laws contrary to the 2A.

    Well, sho' nuff, man who gripes about problems yet offers no solutions. The Feds have passed many gun laws, and the BATFE has formulated many regulations that carry the same weight as laws as though they were passed by Congress.

    The STATES can pass laws more restrictive than the Federal laws they mirror, BUT STATE laws cannot be less restrictive than Federal laws. You chose the 2nd Amendment so lets go with that. States are REQUIRED to follow Federal laws concerning firearms; a state cannot preempt the NFA, GCA '68, or the Firearms Owners Protection Act of '86 just because they get a wild hair up their anus. But they can go further than those laws and pass even more restrictive state laws concerning the laws passed by the Feds. NOTHING in the Constitution prevents that.

    The Constitution you 'THINK' exists was on its death bed starting around 1820, slowly deteriorated until 1861 at which time the first military dictator to take power in the U.S., Abraham Lincoln, was sworn in on March 4, 1861. He then proceeded to drive a stake in the heart of the Constitution, have the carcass drawn and quartered, and set himself up as military dictator and made war on several Southern states that legally seceded from the U.S. Nothing in the Constitution said they couldn't do that, and it was understood by the founders that secession was legal and expected from time to time.

    See how that works? The people in power say what the law and your rights are and and individuals have no power or say in that, be it at Federal or State level. Large groups have power, but the large groups are political parties and they don't really give a damn about you other than wresting your vote for them and their empty promises.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • 6EQUJ5 - WOW!6EQUJ5 - WOW! Banned Posts: 482 Member
    "NOTHING in the Constitution prevents that."

    Have to disagree with you on that. That was precisely why the 10th Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution. As for the Civil War reference, simply not true. The North and South rivalry existed long before 1861 and there were those who were intent on trying to destroy our Tenets - Aaron Burr being a prime example. Even the famed historian, Stephen Ambrose in his book "Undaunted Courage," mentions "had Aaron Burr been elected as President there would almost certainly be no republic today."
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,338 Senior Member
    "NOTHING in the Constitution prevents that."

    Have to disagree with you on that. That was precisely why the 10th Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution. As for the Civil War reference, simply not true. The North and South rivalry existed long before 1861 and there were those who were intent on trying to destroy our Tenets - Aaron Burr being a prime example. Even the famed historian, Stephen Ambrose in his book "Undaunted Courage," mentions "had Aaron Burr been elected as President there would almost certainly be no republic today."

    :uhm: The 10th Amendment is about as useless as teats on a boar hog. Has been since around 1865.

    Never said, typed, nor implied that the North/South rivalry did not exist before 1861. Said Lincoln drove a stake in the Constitution in 1861. There's difference there.

    And contrary to oft stated opinion here, there was nothing in the Constitution that prevented states from leaving the Union. After the Civil War, the Union of the States became a death pact or suicide pact. Once in, you could never leave. Kind of like the Hotel California. Membership at the point of a bayonet.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,500 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Once in, you could never leave. Kind of like the Hotel California. Membership at the point of a bayonet.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • 6EQUJ5 - WOW!6EQUJ5 - WOW! Banned Posts: 482 Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    :uhm: The 10th Amendment is about as useless as teats on a boar hog. Has been since around 1865.

    Never said, typed, nor implied that the North/South rivalry did not exist before 1861. Said Lincoln drove a stake in the Constitution in 1861. There's difference there.

    And contrary to oft stated opinion here, there was nothing in the Constitution that prevented states from leaving the Union. After the Civil War, the Union of the States became a death pact or suicide pact. Once in, you could never leave. Kind of like the Hotel California. Membership at the point of a bayonet.

    "The 10th Amendment is about as useless as teats on a boar hog. Has been since around 1865."

    The 10th Amendment was put in place as a safeguard in case the states or the federal government attempted to intrude on the rights of the people as guaranteed by the Constitution. In other words, the states are to adhere to the letter, the laws of the Constitution and anything not mentioned in the Constitution nor prohibited by it was left up to the states or the people to decide - such as Cali's argument over the current and unconstitutional criminalization of pot. Saying that the "10th Amendment is about "as useless as teats on a boar hog," smacks of the same liberal attitude that the 2nd is as useless. . . ." As far as the Civil War is concerned I always get a bit of a laugh when some try to suggest that only the Union was guilty of atrocities or that Lincoln was comparable to Adolf Hitler. Had the South won the war, and like Stephen Ambrose mentioned with Aaron Burr, there would be no republic today had the South won. America would have become but a mere short footnote in the annals of history. My guess is that America would have been sold off or even conquered by either France, England or Russia shortly thereafter. The world would no doubt be a far darker place had the South won the war as the leadership had not one inkling of preserving our Tenets as the Founder's had envisioned. In short, America is far from perfect but it's the best thing we've got going as long as 'we the people' can fight against tyranny with the either the pen or the sword.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,792 Senior Member
    I like Jeff Sessions and believe him to be about as close to an honest politician as can be found in the Senate.

    However, I'm generally in favor of states exercising their sovereignty rights on issues not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. I'm not sure what my opinions are on the marijuana issue, but if alcohol prohibition was big enough to merit Constitutional amendments to both establish it and remove it, marijuana may also need to be settled that way.The amendment process was designed for these times when the radical elements are driving the political agenda. In calmer times, normal legislative law-making works OK, because compromise is possible. We haven't been that calm for at least 15 years.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,338 Senior Member
    "The 10th Amendment is about as useless as teats on a boar hog. Has been since around 1865."

    The 10th Amendment was put in place as a safeguard in case the states or the federal government attempted to intrude on the rights of the people as guaranteed by the Constitution. In other words, the states are to adhere to the letter, the laws of the Constitution and anything not mentioned in the Constitution nor prohibited by it was left up to the states or the people to decide - such as Cali's argument over the current and unconstitutional criminalization of pot.

    Unconstitutional criminalization of pot? The SCOTUS has ruled that it IS constitutional. Your argument is moot. The original criminalization of pot was based on racism, as was the criminalization of opium. But you'd actually have to explore that FACT to know it. Look it up, if you don't believe it. It's been well documented. I definitely wouldn't want you to take MY word for it.

    Saying that the "10th Amendment is about "as useless as teats on a boar hog," smacks of the same liberal attitude that the 2nd is as useless. . . ."

    You could look at it that way, and you'd still be wrong. The federal government tramples all over the 10th Amendment regularly. One has to pay attention to what is going on to both see and recognize it, though.

    As far as the Civil War is concerned I always get a bit of a laugh when some try to suggest that only the Union was guilty of atrocities or that Lincoln was comparable to Adolf Hitler. Had the South won the war, and like Stephen Ambrose mentioned with Aaron Burr, there would be no republic today had the South won. America would have become but a mere short footnote in the annals of history.

    His opinion is just that; his opinion on the matter.

    My guess is that America would have been sold off or even conquered by either France, England or Russia shortly thereafter. The world would no doubt be a far darker place had the South won the war as the leadership had not one inkling of preserving our Tenets as the Founder's had envisioned. In short, America is far from perfect but it's the best thing we've got going as long as 'we the people' can fight against tyranny with the either the pen or the sword.

    That last bit is so full of erroneous thought that it makes my head hurt. The South was trying to preserve the Constitution as it was written. And if that meant leaving the Union to preserve it, then so be it.

    And here's some things for you to Google and explore:

    The North conscripting Irish immigrants as soon as they stepped off the ship in NYC and their feet hit the pier.

    Draft riots in NYC during the war.

    The North actively recruiting soldiers from overseas to fight. Russians, Prussians, Poles, etc. came in great numbers to fight for the North in the war.

    Actually read, in its entirety, South Carolina's declaration of secession.

    Laws in the NE states prohibiting blacks and slaves/former slaves from entering, much less working, in those states.

    When you've fully explored those subjects, I'll provide you with more reading material.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • 6EQUJ5 - WOW!6EQUJ5 - WOW! Banned Posts: 482 Member
    "I'm not sure what my opinions are on the marijuana issue, but if alcohol prohibition was big enough to merit Constitutional amendments to both establish it and remove it, marijuana may also need to be settled that way."

    That reminds me of the beginning chapters of John Ross's fine book "Unintended Consequences" and what happens when government has too much power to wield as a result of the 18th/21st Amendments. The atrocities committed by our own Federal government towards the WWI vets of the Bonus Army at the hands of Hoover, MacArthur, and Patton for example. . . . The Marijuana issue and the so-called "war on drugs" is the darker shadow of that era.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,797 Senior Member
    Mike, you left out the part about Lincoln actually sending arms and money to Mexico because he feared that if the French won that war, they might continue north and help the Confederacy.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    When you've fully explored those subjects, I'll provide you with more reading material.

    Mike, what makes you think the person you're addressing can actually read, assuming he's a product of the brainwashing cabal commonly known as the "public indoctrination system"?
    :uhm:
    Jerry
  • 6EQUJ5 - WOW!6EQUJ5 - WOW! Banned Posts: 482 Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    And here's some things for you to Google and explore:

    My apologies, but I don't use google or the internet as source material nor for fact checking. Much rather read a book. As far as the South trying to preserve the Constitution? - that is the biggest line of b.s. I've read in a while. The South had not one single intention of "preserving" our Tenets in the slightest. I do however, agree with you that our own federal government has had a dark past at times, but as with any nation, there will always be those who will try to destroy it from within. The beauty of our system, unlike any other nation with the exception of say Switzerland perhaps, is that we have a means of fighting against it via the voting process, or in a more extreme fashion, the sword itself.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    :uhm: The 10th Amendment is about as useless as teats on a boar hog. Has been since around 1865.

    Never said, typed, nor implied that the North/South rivalry did not exist before 1861. Said Lincoln drove a stake in the Constitution in 1861. There's difference there.

    And contrary to oft stated opinion here, there was nothing in the Constitution that prevented states from leaving the Union. After the Civil War, the Union of the States became a death pact or suicide pact. Once in, you could never leave. Kind of like the Hotel California. Membership at the point of a bayonet.

    Depending on who is in power and the make up of the court, that death pact can be good or bad. We don't need to think about what if or why don't we split, we need to take some serious matters into our hands and change things. The commies have for the last 75 or so years been getting control of the education system of this country and the media has always been eaten up with leftists or rather shall we call them what they are, Commies. That needs to change. It's past the point of being a first amendment issue, the media has changed from an information outlet to a mass propaganda and indoctrination system that is fast changing the thought process of the average American making us sheep. I say us but there are certain among us that think for ourselves. We need to change things now, one more Obama and I think we're done for. We need to start changing people's thinking, or rather give them the opportunity to hear a different message. What they've been hearing at least the last 8 years has almost done us in. Look at our college campuses now!

    Anyway, You know where I'm coming from. You know the problem so I'm preaching to the choir here.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Depending on who is in power and the make up of the court, that death pact can be good or bad. We don't need to think about what if or why don't we split, we need to take some serious matters into our hands and change things. The commies have for the last 75 or so years been getting control of the education system of this country and the media has always been eaten up with leftists or rather shall we call them what they are, Commies. That needs to change. It's past the point of being a first amendment issue, the media has changed from an information outlet to a mass propaganda and indoctrination system that is fast changing the thought process of the average American making us sheep. I say us but there are certain among us that think for ourselves. We need to change things now, one more Obama and I think we're done for. We need to start changing people's thinking, or rather give them the opportunity to hear a different message. What they've been hearing at least the last 8 years has almost done us in. Look at our college campuses now!

    Anyway, You know where I'm coming from. You know the problem so I'm preaching to the choir here.

    What we really need to do is get this message out to more people. We need to "Wake America Up!"
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • 6EQUJ5 - WOW!6EQUJ5 - WOW! Banned Posts: 482 Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Depending on who is in power and the make up of the court, that death pact can be good or bad. We don't need to think about what if or why don't we split, we need to take some serious matters into our hands and change things.

    Exactly. Far too many historical revisionists dwell on events that happened nearly 150 years ago instead of re-focusing that pent up frustration on more contemporary issues that face us today. Some people argue just for the sake of arguing as evident in this thread and other topics without looking at the true historical facts. That is precisely why the left will succeed as many people today refuse to fight a common goal or cause because of an inflated sense of self importance.
This discussion has been closed.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement