This thread has turned to major lols.

Let's be clear - porkulous and the tainted bailouts were never a good idea, no matter who the president.  It was a waste of money to ease the burst instead of letting the market correct itself, meaning a slower, longer fall that resulted in an unnecessarily and artificially elongated recovery with nothing to show for the wasted money.  Per usual, the career politicians on each side cast their vote in support to buy votes (not because they were good ideas, they just sold easily and well to the uninformed.)  

Our country was formed by settlers, those seeking establishment of a new country where they had shared values.  Today's illegal immigrants are nothing of the sort, they come to claim resources without contributing.  They see the self induced problems we've created through poor immigration policy.  But one party has realized they can be abused for illegal votes.  Let them pour in, grant amnesty later but find a way to allow them to vote now, and they will have built a monarchy for their party.  Problem is, that trojan horse will backfire as there's no cultural assimilation or positive contribution to society.  Just growth of the nanny state, which is already proven unsustainable.  This is Alinsky tactics.  Cripple/topple the system by overrunning it.

Let's be real about it.  All else is nonsense.

The number of illegal immigrants who have tricked the system into letting them vote can be counted on one hand.
They are not voting now. 
Legal immigrants also do not vote until they get citizenship. 
The Democrats play is more subtle.  They think they can earn the allegiance of new citizens by being super-nice to illegal immigrants.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You are either knowingly lying, or clearly have no clue. The bank bailouts were passed with more Democrats than Republicans. Even the leftist Politifact admits this. There were plenty of "right wing" critics of the bank bailout and the Pubs who voted for it were centrists, not conservatives.

Stimulus wasn't "suddenly bad." The nature of Obama's so-called stimulus, vastly increasing spending instead of the tax cut method in the Bush stimulus (and it was in 2001, not 2005), was the point of disagreement.

These points had nothing to do with Obama's skin color. It had nothing to do with party affiliation either, other than the fact that those policies are tied to party affiliation.

Let's see that politifact article.  The bailout started in the Senate, and a majority of the Republican senators voted yes.  Then the bailout went to the House, where a majority of Republican members voted no.  Then it went to the President, and the Republican signed the bill.
So in two out of three steps the Republican party endorsed the legislation.  It's also true that a majority of the Democrats supported the bill in the Senate and in the House, but that's not relevant to my point.  My point is that Republicans used to support that kind of thing, and then changed their minds.

As for stimulus, we both have the dates wrong.  Bush passed two stimuli, 2001 and 2008.  You are correct that the Bush stimulus was purely temporary tax cuts, both times, but the Obama stimulus was 2/3 spending and 1/3 tax cuts.  But every spending bill passed during the Bush Administration also added to large deficits, all deficits are stimulative, and all of them for the first six years had majority Republican support.  I don't see how doing the taxes and the spending in separate bills is really more morally defensible than combining them, but, whatever.

The word Politifact was a link, and you are dead wrong about the Senate.

I don't remember a 2008 stimulus, unless you are counting the bail out as a stimulus. The Dems controlled both houses in 2008, so if there was a stimulus it was a Dem bill signed by Bush, who was not a conservative.

The tax cuts under Obama were cuts to the employee portion of FICA. I had no disagreement with that part of it, but it was not a stimulus. In 2009 there were a lot of people hurting, and many of the temporary laws passed then were necessary, although they were in the realm of welfare, not stimulus.

I agree that spending was too high under Bush. Bush wasn't given a pass by the right for the overspending. Most conservatives opposed the spending increases, and I sent an E-mail to Speaker Hastert and Senate Majority leader Frist (and to my own congressman and senators) expressing my anger at the overspending (Senator Frist actually personally responded, my congressman and senators didn't even reply with a form letter). Admittedly, some of the spending was needed in response to the 9/11 attack, but much was wasted rebuilding Iraq. There were also big increases in domestic spending.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The basic definitions of right winger and left winger are flawed. The right believes in individual rights as expressed in the declaration of independence. As you pointed out, that blueprint for constitutional republicanism is wholly antithetical to slavery (democrats) and Jim crow (democrats.) It was this adherence that shaped the 13th 14th and 15th amendments, the civil rights acts before 1964 and the aspiration of American blacks from the civil war to the early 60's.

The left has ALWAYS marketed itself on the power of the state to enforce GROUP RIGHTS. The irritations change depending on the voting group it is trying to court. When it was the white working class then you saw 50k klansman marching down Manhattan to the democratic national convention. When its modern feminism or certain minority groups you have ranting against a new boogey man, "evil white males."

In the mid 60s after the legal framework of Jim crow was rightly destroyed the southern democratic party marketed itself to blacks in the same way the northern democrats marketed themselves to immigrant populations. "Vote for us and well give u stuff". This was a conversion that started to manifest in the 30s with aspects of the new deal that was fully consummated with the adaptation of the Tammeny style great society. The question was no longer about equal access or opportunity. It was about the false promise of equal outcome through government intervention.

Does that mean LBJ loved blacks? No. He loved being president! Mlk and the civil rights leaders actually pushed through legislation that Johnson Kennedy gore etc. Had all previously opposed. Johnson is quoted saying some of the most vial racist things long after the passage of the cra vra and the new deal.

Moreover. No one As is how the great society affected blacks. For long periods post reconstruction blacks had higher marriage rates and lower unemployment rates than whites. Black teens were more likely to be employed. In the 50s the black poverty rate fell from 87% to 47% and it was the market demand for black labor and capital that pushed through the legislation you tout. Where are we today? Black families, thanks to the structure of welfare and other government programs, are 50% behind whites in legitimacy rates and we lag behind more economically today than we did in the 60s despite over 22 trillion dollars spent on transfer payments since we declared the war on poverty.

---

Every single thread he hijacks turns into the deepest and most bizarre rabbit holes imaginable, getting completely off track of the original topic.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

I think your definition of racism is way too narrow.  Belief that one's own race is superior is common among racists, but not all racists feel that way. Some racists believe that races are basically equal, but so different that they should be separated.  Other racists believe their own race is inferior.  
From 1890 to 1957 the motto was separate but equal.  To defend that system in court,  the elected officials argued up and down that it wasn't about superiority or inferiority, just separation.  Your definition of racism would have given that generation a pass.  
I think you are telling the truth that you harbor no ill will to your neighbor from Honduras.
But you should ask him if he feels like some Americans treat him as an inferior due to his race.  It might not be you, but it's out there, and he most likely has sensed it.
Racism has at least two definitions.  

There is personal racism, in our own personal behavior about how we assess each other's character and capabilities. For instance, if you were attending an orchestra concert, and a black man stepped up to the piano, you might think for a moment - well I know black people can play popular music, but classical? Until you actually heard him play, you might doubt his ability in a way that you might not doubt an Asian's.  Conversely, if you were at a rock or jazz concert, and an Asian stepped up to the piano, you might feel the same question.  These are racist instincts, based on stereotypes we have seen. The piano example is mostly harmless because any of us would give the person a chance to play and confirm or break the stereotype.  So here's another.  You walk outside of a large office building downtown and people are yelling at each other.  You are not sure why.  A crowd is forming. No uniformed cops around, yet. A man catches your eye, lifts his shirt just enough for you to see he has a pistol, and winks at you. If the man is the same race as you, you probably think, "oh, he's saying he has my back." If the man is a different race, you probably think you just got threatened and you start thinking "fight or flight.". Every single person has racist reactions like this, just like every person has jealousy or adulterous thoughts.

Then there is institutional racism, which is much more complicated, and has been building up for years and years and will take generations to undo. For instance, my wife and I had our parents pay for our first cars and our college tuition.  We stand to get good inheritances from our parents and grandparents.  We get these advantages mostly because they had great home equity over the years. But back when our grandparents bought that starter home, they got loans which never would have been extended to a black person back then, before the Fair Housing Act was passed. Our grandparents still worked hard to pay their mortgages.  My wife and I worked hard to graduate college debt free.  But those respective, cascading advantages typically were not available to black people no matter how hard they worked.

Stop projecting your views on everyone else.  

In a previous post you stated, and I paraphrase:  people are not right or left on all issues the go back and forth depending on the issue.

Now you have spent two days slapping labels on anything and everyone.  Maybe you should do some self reflection and soul searching.

I'm just trying to demonstrate that promoting white supremacy in the 1960s and 1970s would have been a right wing view.  I'm categorizing a specific viewpoint on a single issue at a single time. 
People devoted to that cause could have had other views on other issues - like how Squeaky Fromme apparently also wanted to "save the trees".  That part is pretty left-wing.  Real people have multiple views on multiple issues and live through multiple times.
I self-reflect and search my soul all the time.  I'm sure you do too.  Most of us do.
The problem is that I'm the only one here trying to answer one question at a time.  Whether intentional or not, most of you are equivocating my words, and then arguing against points that I didn't actually make.  I'm being specific for a reason.  Make sure you understand before you say I'm wrong.

---

Let's see that politifact article.  The bailout started in the Senate, and a majority of the Republican senators voted yes.  Then the bailout went to the House, where a majority of Republican members voted no.  Then it went to the President, and the Republican signed the bill.
So in two out of three steps the Republican party endorsed the legislation.  It's also true that a majority of the Democrats supported the bill in the Senate and in the House, but that's not relevant to my point.  My point is that Republicans used to support that kind of thing, and then changed their minds.

As for stimulus, we both have the dates wrong.  Bush passed two stimuli, 2001 and 2008.  You are correct that the Bush stimulus was purely temporary tax cuts, both times, but the Obama stimulus was 2/3 spending and 1/3 tax cuts.  But every spending bill passed during the Bush Administration also added to large deficits, all deficits are stimulative, and all of them for the first six years had majority Republican support.  I don't see how doing the taxes and the spending in separate bills is really more morally defensible than combining them, but, whatever.

The word Politifact was a link, and you are dead wrong about the Senate.

I don't remember a 2008 stimulus, unless you are counting the bail out as a stimulus. The Dems controlled both houses in 2008, so if there was a stimulus it was a Dem bill signed by Bush, who was not a conservative.

The tax cuts under Obama were cuts to the employee portion of FICA. I had no disagreement with that part of it, but it was not a stimulus. In 2009 there were a lot of people hurting, and many of the temporary laws passed then were necessary, although they were in the realm of welfare, not stimulus.

I agree that spending was too high under Bush. Bush wasn't given a pass by the right for the overspending. Most conservatives opposed the spending increases, and I sent an E-mail to Speaker Hastert and Senate Majority leader Frist (and to my own congressman and senators) expressing my anger at the overspending (Senator Frist actually personally responded, my congressman and senators didn't even reply with a form letter). Admittedly, some of the spending was needed in response to the 9/11 attack, but much was wasted rebuilding Iraq. There were also big increases in domestic spending.

If you're going to say that Bush 43 wasn't a conservative, you are committing the No True Scotsman fallacy.  Some of the things he did might not fall under a specific definition of "conservative" but his identity in general is part of any definition of American Conservative. You can disown some of what he did, but to disown most of it, you'd have to re-define "conservatism" as this fringe political movement that wasn't actually able to get people elected from 2000 to 2008.
You can do better.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So now we're all racists, huh? Speak for yourself there bub. Your use of the term here is exactly why it has no value, because, like lots of other words, you dont know how to use them correctly.

What does racist mean to you?  Is discrimination on the basis of national origin not a form of racism?

Racism is the belief that the races are different with some strains being superior or inferior to the others.

National Origin and Race are not the same thing. For instance, I know that God's True People, the Irish, are superior in every way to the English, the Welsh, and <shudder> the Scots, but to you those are just all White People. That doesn't make me a racist, it makes me a Bigot.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The basic definitions of right winger and left winger are flawed.  The right believes in individual rights as expressed in the declaration of independence.  As you pointed out, that blueprint for constitutional republicanism is wholly antithetical to slavery (democrats) and Jim crow (democrats.)  It was this adherence that shaped the 13th 14th and 15th amendments, the civil rights acts before 1964 and the aspiration of American blacks from the civil war to the early 60's.  

The left has ALWAYS marketed itself on the power of the state to enforce GROUP RIGHTS.  The irritations change depending on the voting group it is trying to court.  When it was the white working class then you saw 50k klansman marching down Manhattan to the democratic national convention.  When its modern feminism or certain minority groups you have ranting against a new boogey man, "evil white males."  

In the mid 60s after the legal framework of Jim crow was rightly destroyed the southern democratic party marketed itself to blacks in the same way the northern democrats marketed themselves to immigrant populations.  "Vote for us and well give u stuff".  This was a conversion that started to manifest in the 30s with aspects of the new deal that was fully consummated with the adaptation of the Tammeny style great society.  The question was no longer about equal access or opportunity.  It was about the false promise of equal outcome through government intervention.

Does that mean LBJ loved blacks?  No.  He loved being president!  Mlk and the civil rights leaders actually pushed through legislation that Johnson Kennedy gore etc. Had all previously opposed.  Johnson is quoted saying some of the most vial racist things long after the passage of the cra vra and the new deal.  

Moreover.  No one As is how the great society affected blacks.  For long periods post reconstruction blacks had higher marriage rates and lower unemployment rates than whites.  Black teens were more likely to be employed.  In the 50s the black poverty rate fell from 87% to 47% and it was the market demand for black labor and capital that pushed through the legislation you tout.  Where are we today?  Black families, thanks to the structure of welfare and other government programs, are 50% behind whites in legitimacy rates and we lag behind more economically today than we did in the 60s despite over 22 trillion dollars spent on transfer payments since we declared the war on poverty.

I think your definitions of left and right are pretty good in terms of the past century.  I wouldn't use the word "always" or "never" but you're correct about the general trends.

I also think that the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act had NOTHING to do with Welfare.  Yes, food stamps and medicaid and section 8 and welfare all started around the same time, but they were all separate Acts of Congress that had separate people voting for them.  The Southern Democrats, as already noted, did everything they could to block the VRA and CRA.  Republican votes, mostly from Northern States, were needed to pass those.  But all the welfare programs had different vote breakdowns.  The Southern Democrats mostly voted yes, and the Northern Republicans mostly voted no. 

So I feel like you and others that want to criticize these programs - I might agree with your criticism, but you're changing the topic.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Every single thread he hijacks turns into the deepest and most bizarre rabbit holes imaginable, getting completely off track of the original topic.

The topic is, people are saying only the left wing does political violence.  I countered, does right wing politics also motivate violence?  I mentioned Squeaky Fromme, because she was a white supremacist.  This has really tripped you all up even though I have reasons for connecting white supremacy to the right wing.  There are other examples I could have mentioned instead of Squeaky.  Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols.  Eric Rudolph.  It happens.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Every single thread he hijacks turns into the deepest and most bizarre rabbit holes imaginable, getting completely off track of the original topic.

The topic is, people are saying only the left wing does political violence.  I countered, does right wing politics also motivate violence?  I mentioned Squeaky Fromme, because she was a white supremacist.  This has really tripped you all up even though I have reasons for connecting white supremacy to the right wing.  There are other examples I could have mentioned instead of Squeaky.  Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols.  Eric Rudolph.  It happens.

Yes, glad you admit that you chose poorly. Maybe your lesson in this should be that if multiple people yell you you're full of [BLEEP] then you're probably, in fact, full of [BLEEP].

---

Every single thread he hijacks turns into the deepest and most bizarre rabbit holes imaginable, getting completely off track of the original topic.

Feels like JDub Syndrome with some intelligence instead of retardation.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Let's see that politifact article.  The bailout started in the Senate, and a majority of the Republican senators voted yes.  Then the bailout went to the House, where a majority of Republican members voted no.  Then it went to the President, and the Republican signed the bill.
So in two out of three steps the Republican party endorsed the legislation.  It's also true that a majority of the Democrats supported the bill in the Senate and in the House, but that's not relevant to my point.  My point is that Republicans used to support that kind of thing, and then changed their minds.

As for stimulus, we both have the dates wrong.  Bush passed two stimuli, 2001 and 2008.  You are correct that the Bush stimulus was purely temporary tax cuts, both times, but the Obama stimulus was 2/3 spending and 1/3 tax cuts.  But every spending bill passed during the Bush Administration also added to large deficits, all deficits are stimulative, and all of them for the first six years had majority Republican support.  I don't see how doing the taxes and the spending in separate bills is really more morally defensible than combining them, but, whatever.

The word Politifact was a link, and you are dead wrong about the Senate.

I know it was a link.  
I read it.  I looked at the vote breakdowns offered. 
Go ahead and check my math.
If you divide the number of Republican senators voting yes by the total number of Republican senators that year, you get more than 50%.
A majority of Republicans in the Senate voted yes.
How the Democrats voted is irrelevant to my point.  My point is the Republican votes changed after Obama became President, either due to partisan hypocrisy, some kind of unexplained political repentance, or racism.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Super soft and full of cinnamon - this Snickerdoodles recipe is sure to be a hit!

Prep Time 10 minutes
Cook Time 10 minutes
Total Time 20 minutes
Servings 36

INGREDIENTS
• 1 cup butter softened
• 1 1/2 cups sugar
• 2 eggs
• 1 tsp vanilla
• 2 3/4 cups flour
• 2 tsp cream of tartar
• 1 tsp baking soda
• 1/2 tsp salt
• 3 tbsp sugar
• 1 tbsp cinnamon

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Mix together flour, cream of tartar, baking soda, and salt together. Set aside.

2. Cream together sugar and butter. Add eggs and vanilla and blend well.

3. Add dry ingredients to wet ingredients and mix well.

4. Shape dough into 1 inch balls and roll in the cinnamon-sugar mixture.

5. Place 2 inches apart on ungreased cookie sheet.

6. Bake for 8-10 minutes at 350 degrees. (Makes about 3-4 dozen cookies

---

Every single thread he hijacks turns into the deepest and most bizarre rabbit holes imaginable, getting completely off track of the original topic.

The topic is, people are saying only the left wing does political violence.  I countered, does right wing politics also motivate violence?  I mentioned Squeaky Fromme, because she was a white supremacist.  This has really tripped you all up even though I have reasons for connecting white supremacy to the right wing.  There are other examples I could have mentioned instead of Squeaky.  Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols.  Eric Rudolph.  It happens.

Again, it's the left wing and the Democrat party that seeks to keep minorities on the plantation, not the right.  If your foundation is baseless, then the rest is just blather.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Every single thread he hijacks turns into the deepest and most bizarre rabbit holes imaginable, getting completely off track of the original topic.

The topic is, people are saying only the left wing does political violence.  I countered, does right wing politics also motivate violence?  I mentioned Squeaky Fromme, because she was a white supremacist.  This has really tripped you all up even though I have reasons for connecting white supremacy to the right wing.  There are other examples I could have mentioned instead of Squeaky.  Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols.  Eric Rudolph.  It happens.

No, the topic was political violence in Trump era. Somehow we are grasping at every historical period up to this point for reference in an attempt to be more ‘right’. The one up game can be played all the way back to a parties beginning. This topic is now stuck in some twisted mountain pass in China!

---

Super soft and full of cinnamon - this Snickerdoodles recipe is sure to be a hit!

Prep Time 10 minutes
Cook Time 10 minutes
Total Time 20 minutes
Servings 36

INGREDIENTS
• 1 cup butter softened
• 1 1/2 cups sugar
• 2 eggs
• 1 tsp vanilla
• 2 3/4 cups flour
• 2 tsp cream of tartar
• 1 tsp baking soda
• 1/2 tsp salt
• 3 tbsp sugar
• 1 tbsp cinnamon

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Mix together flour, cream of tartar, baking soda, and salt together. Set aside.

2. Cream together sugar and butter. Add eggs and vanilla and blend well.

3. Add dry ingredients to wet ingredients and mix well.

4. Shape dough into 1 inch balls and roll in the cinnamon-sugar mixture.

5. Place 2 inches apart on ungreased cookie sheet.

6. Bake for 8-10 minutes at 350 degrees. (Makes about 3-4 dozen cookies

RACISS!

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

The topic is, people are saying only the left wing idoes political violence.  I countered, does right wing politics also motivate violence?  I mentioned Squeaky Fromme, because she was a white supremacist.  This has really tripped you all up even though I have reasons for connecting white supremacy to the right wing.  There are other examples I could have mentioned instead of Squeaky.  Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols.  Eric Rudolph.  It happens.

No, the topic was political violence in Trump era. Somehow we are grasping at every historical period up to this point for reference in an attempt to be more ‘right’. The one up game can be played all the way back to a parties beginning. This topic is now stuck in some twisted mountain pass in China!

When left is right the whole worldview is upside down.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The topic is, people are saying only the left wing does political violence.  I countered, does right wing politics also motivate violence?  I mentioned Squeaky Fromme, because she was a white supremacist.  This has really tripped you all up even though I have reasons for connecting white supremacy to the right wing.  There are other examples I could have mentioned instead of Squeaky.  Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols.  Eric Rudolph.  It happens.

Again, it's the left wing and the Democrat party that seeks to keep minorities on the plantation, not the right.  If your foundation is baseless, then the rest is just blather.

This is the second time you've mentioned the "plantation".  I already asked you to help me understand what you mean by this.  Could you go back and answer the questions I had there? Because I don't want to assume.

---

The topic is, people are saying only the left wing does political violence.  I countered, does right wing politics also motivate violence?  I mentioned Squeaky Fromme, because she was a white supremacist.  This has really tripped you all up even though I have reasons for connecting white supremacy to the right wing.  There are other examples I could have mentioned instead of Squeaky.  Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols.  Eric Rudolph.  It happens.

No, the topic was political violence in Trump era. Somehow we are grasping at every historical period up to this point for reference in an attempt to be more ‘right’. The one up game can be played all the way back to a parties beginning. This topic is now stuck in some twisted mountain pass in China!

That's my point!
Thank you!
The person who tried to blame all political violence on "the left" was wrong.
There is always another incident to look at.  
Blaming everything on "one side" is a fool's errand and can't solve the issue of how to help people come together in the future.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Again, it's the left wing and the Democrat party that seeks to keep minorities on the plantation, not the right.  If your foundation is baseless, then the rest is just blather.

This is the second time you've mentioned the "plantation".  I already asked you to help me understand what you mean by this.  Could you go back and answer the questions I had there? Because I don't want to assume.

---

No, the topic was political violence in Trump era. Somehow we are grasping at every historical period up to this point for reference in an attempt to be more ‘right’. The one up game can be played all the way back to a parties beginning. This topic is now stuck in some twisted mountain pass in China!

That's my point!
Thank you!
The person who tried to blame all political violence on "the left" was wrong.
There is always another incident to look at.  
Blaming everything on "one side" is a fool's errand and can't solve the issue of how to help people come together in the future.

Why are you so hell bent on trying to be right all the time? You allow it to muddy the topic and your point time and time again to claim some irrelevant victory. It’s weird. But I can agree to your last sentence as it applies to all the boxes and tags society tries to force us in.

---

This is the second time you've mentioned the "plantation".  I already asked you to help me understand what you mean by this.  Could you go back and answer the questions I had there? Because I don't want to assume.

---

That's my point!
Thank you!
The person who tried to blame all political violence on "the left" was wrong.
There is always another incident to look at.  
Blaming everything on "one side" is a fool's errand and can't solve the issue of how to help people come together in the future.

Why are you so hell bent on trying to be right all the time? You allow it to muddy the topic and your point time and time again to claim some irrelevant victory. It’s weird. But I can agree to your last sentence as it applies to all the boxes and tags society tries to force us in.

I hear you.
I get why you feel that way.
I'm not trying to be right.  I admitted getting dates wrong twice in this thread.  
I'm just trying to understand other people with a logical discussion, premise by premise.  It's tiresome.  It takes a long time.  But people sometimes misunderstand each other and get mad because they have different premises.
Politics is important enough that we should be explaining exactly what we mean, premise by premise.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You guys are getting played.

---

Jaguars training camp starts today.

---