What in the actual hell. 

There is not a proper emoji for this moment.

---

What a laugh, a liberal using the constitution defensively while on the other side of his mouth making a mockery of it while advocating its destruction.

How am I making a mockery of the constitution?
How am I advocating its destruction?

---

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

Claiming that an election was stolen when it wasn't is violence against the US constitution.
Speech that says we should stop having a constitution, that the president, congress and courts are no longer legitimate, is permissible per the 1st amendment,  of course.  But it is still against the constitution.

LOL.  The spoken word meets your definition of "violence"?  

LOL#2  How can it be simultaneously permissible and against?  Even for you, that's a stretch.  You understand the 1st Amendment is part of the Constitution, don't you?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

It doesn't matter. He fundamentally misrepresents their position, anyways. They believe the election was stolen. The government didn't do an immediate, transparent, and thorough investigation of the claims, nor did it take any measures to safeguard against anything similar in the future. That's why people were mad. That's why people were there. Whether it's true or untrue is irrelevant. They aren't trying to burn the constitution. At least not most of them. Meanwhile, on the progressive left, you do have many, many activists who are using protest, riots, censorship, and intimidation for the sole purpose of destroying the pillars of our government, but Mikey supports that cause. Why? Because he can't think critically about what's going on in our country. He parrots establishment talking points. There is a threat of violence coming from the right. Not only will I concede it, but I was warning of that about 8 years ago. The two-tier justice system has to go away.

---

Claiming that an election was stolen when it wasn't is violence against the US constitution.
Speech that says we should stop having a constitution, that the president, congress and courts are no longer legitimate, is permissible per the 1st amendment,  of course.  But it is still against the constitution.

LOL.  The spoken word meets your definition of "violence"?  

LOL#2  How can it be simultaneously permissible and against?  Even for you, that's a stretch.  You understand the 1st Amendment is part of the Constitution, don't you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Consti...icide_pact

---

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

It doesn't matter. He fundamentally misrepresents their position, anyways. They believe the election was stolen. The government didn't do an immediate, transparent, and thorough investigation of the claims, nor did it take any measures to safeguard against anything similar in the future. That's why people were mad. That's why people were there. Whether it's true or untrue is irrelevant. They aren't trying to burn the constitution. At least not most of them. Meanwhile, on the progressive left, you do have many, many activists who are using protest, riots, censorship, and intimidation for the sole purpose of destroying the pillars of our government, but Mikey supports that cause. Why? Because he can't think critically about what's going on in our country. He parrots establishment talking points. There is a threat of violence coming from the right. Not only will I concede it, but I was warning of that about 8 years ago. The two-tier justice system has to go away.

The people were using threats of kidnapping and execution to prevent officials from doing their duty under the constitution.  They were saying that their interpretation of who won which state was more valid than the interpretation from the states themselves. If that's not burning the constitution I don't know what is.

You're also misrepresenting me regarding efforts from the progressive left to use violence. I don't think that's acceptable at all.  And I don't think it's acceptable for anyone, left, or right, to say things about our constitution being to inconvenient or too old fashioned and it should be disobeyed.  We obviously need to amend the thing in some ways.  Leftists say "don't listen to those dead white slaveholders," and that's obviously completely wrong.  

But when right wing people say "we can't let people vote for socialism" or "we can't let people vote themselves more money," that's equally wrong.  Right wingers should work to convince people to their way of thinking, so voters don't want to vote themselves more money, but the Constitution provides absolutely no refuge to anyone who wants to prevent adults from voting on any topic they want to vote on.

---

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

It doesn't matter. He fundamentally misrepresents their position, anyways. They believe the election was stolen. The government didn't do an immediate, transparent, and thorough investigation of the claims, nor did it take any measures to safeguard against anything similar in the future. That's why people were mad. That's why people were there. Whether it's true or untrue is irrelevant. They aren't trying to burn the constitution. At least not most of them. Meanwhile, on the progressive left, you do have many, many activists who are using protest, riots, censorship, and intimidation for the sole purpose of destroying the pillars of our government, but Mikey supports that cause. Why? Because he can't think critically about what's going on in our country. He parrots establishment talking points. There is a threat of violence coming from the right. Not only will I concede it, but I was warning of that about 8 years ago. The two-tier justice system has to go away.

The people were using threats of kidnapping and execution to prevent officials from doing their duty under the constitution.  They were saying that their interpretation of who won which state was more valid than the interpretation from the states themselves. If that's not burning the constitution I don't know what is.

You're also misrepresenting me regarding efforts from the progressive left to use violence. I don't think that's acceptable at all.  And I don't think it's acceptable for anyone, left, or right, to say things about our constitution being to inconvenient or too old fashioned and it should be disobeyed.  We obviously need to amend the thing in some ways.  Leftists say "don't listen to those dead white slaveholders," and that's obviously completely wrong.  

But when right wing people say "we can't let people vote for socialism" or "we can't let people vote themselves more money," that's equally wrong.  Right wingers should work to convince people to their way of thinking, so voters don't want to vote themselves more money, but the Constitution provides absolutely no refuge to anyone who wants to prevent adults from voting on any topic they want to vote on.

You are wrong. Inevitably, when socialism takes hold it destroys constitutions and societies. This is exactly why we have the second amendment. To prevent an authoritarian government denying us our civil liberties. Besides, this as usual was created and directed by swamp. 

Those people were manipulated by the powers to be ( Not Trump) to go the capital and enter. The powers to be saw this as an opportunity to deflect attention away from obvious voter fraud that was perpetrated against the American people. We know what’s really happening..

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

On its face, this certainly doesn't look good. 

Cruz Grills FBI Director: The Guy In Charge Of The Whitmer Kidnapping Entrapment Plot Got Promoted And Is Now In Charge Of The J-6 Case? | Video | RealClearPolitics

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/..._case.html

---

The people were using threats of kidnapping and execution to prevent officials from doing their duty under the constitution.  They were saying that their interpretation of who won which state was more valid than the interpretation from the states themselves. If that's not burning the constitution I don't know what is.

You're also misrepresenting me regarding efforts from the progressive left to use violence. I don't think that's acceptable at all.  And I don't think it's acceptable for anyone, left, or right, to say things about our constitution being to inconvenient or too old fashioned and it should be disobeyed.  We obviously need to amend the thing in some ways.  Leftists say "don't listen to those dead white slaveholders," and that's obviously completely wrong.  

But when right wing people say "we can't let people vote for socialism" or "we can't let people vote themselves more money," that's equally wrong.  Right wingers should work to convince people to their way of thinking, so voters don't want to vote themselves more money, but the Constitution provides absolutely no refuge to anyone who wants to prevent adults from voting on any topic they want to vote on.

You are wrong. Inevitably, when socialism takes hold it destroys constitutions and societies. This is exactly why we have the second amendment. To prevent an authoritarian government denying us our civil liberties. Besides, this as usual was created and directed by swamp. 

Those people were manipulated by the powers to be ( Not Trump) to go the capital and enter. The powers to be saw this as an opportunity to deflect attention away from obvious voter fraud that was perpetrated against the American people. We know what’s really happening..

Where in the constitution say that the people can't vote for socialism or any other thing that the people want? I agree that some ideas would require a Constitutional amendment, but the people are allowed to vote for Representatives that would adopt such amendments.

---

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

You are wrong. Inevitably, when socialism takes hold it destroys constitutions and societies. This is exactly why we have the second amendment. To prevent an authoritarian government denying us our civil liberties. Besides, this as usual was created and directed by swamp. 

Those people were manipulated by the powers to be ( Not Trump) to go the capital and enter. The powers to be saw this as an opportunity to deflect attention away from obvious voter fraud that was perpetrated against the American people. We know what’s really happening..

Where in the constitution say that the people can't vote for socialism or any other thing that the people want? I agree that some ideas would require a Constitutional amendment, but the people are allowed to vote for Representatives that would adopt such amendments.

Because, it will deny me my “inalienable rights” if those laws get in my way of Life, Liberty and stops me from pursuing Happiness then it’s my right, no my duty to fight that by any means necessary. And that is what the framers had in mind.

“Congress shall pass no law”

Look it up chief

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

It doesn't matter. He fundamentally misrepresents their position, anyways. They believe the election was stolen. The government didn't do an immediate, transparent, and thorough investigation of the claims, nor did it take any measures to safeguard against anything similar in the future. That's why people were mad. That's why people were there. Whether it's true or untrue is irrelevant. They aren't trying to burn the constitution. At least not most of them. Meanwhile, on the progressive left, you do have many, many activists who are using protest, riots, censorship, and intimidation for the sole purpose of destroying the pillars of our government, but Mikey supports that cause. Why? Because he can't think critically about what's going on in our country. He parrots establishment talking points. There is a threat of violence coming from the right. Not only will I concede it, but I was warning of that about 8 years ago. The two-tier justice system has to go away.

The people were using threats of kidnapping and execution to prevent officials from doing their duty under the constitution.  They were saying that their interpretation of who won which state was more valid than the interpretation from the states themselves. If that's not burning the constitution I don't know what is.

You're also misrepresenting me regarding efforts from the progressive left to use violence. I don't think that's acceptable at all.  And I don't think it's acceptable for anyone, left, or right, to say things about our constitution being to inconvenient or too old fashioned and it should be disobeyed.  We obviously need to amend the thing in some ways.  Leftists say "don't listen to those dead white slaveholders," and that's obviously completely wrong.  

But when right wing people say "we can't let people vote for socialism" or "we can't let people vote themselves more money," that's equally wrong.  Right wingers should work to convince people to their way of thinking, so voters don't want to vote themselves more money, but the Constitution provides absolutely no refuge to anyone who wants to prevent adults from voting on any topic they want to vote on.

Thanks for clarifying your opinion of the 1st Amendment.  I think we all know where you stand on the 2nd.  How many others would you like to abolish?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Where in the constitution say that the people can't vote for socialism or any other thing that the people want? I agree that some ideas would require a Constitutional amendment, but the people are allowed to vote for Representatives that would adopt such amendments.

Because, it will deny me my “inalienable rights” if those laws get in my way of Life, Liberty and stops me from pursuing Happiness then it’s my right, no my duty to fight that by any means necessary. And that is what the framers had in mind.

“Congress shall pass no law”

Look it up chief

Yeah that's completely incorrect.

---

The people were using threats of kidnapping and execution to prevent officials from doing their duty under the constitution.  They were saying that their interpretation of who won which state was more valid than the interpretation from the states themselves. If that's not burning the constitution I don't know what is.

You're also misrepresenting me regarding efforts from the progressive left to use violence. I don't think that's acceptable at all.  And I don't think it's acceptable for anyone, left, or right, to say things about our constitution being to inconvenient or too old fashioned and it should be disobeyed.  We obviously need to amend the thing in some ways.  Leftists say "don't listen to those dead white slaveholders," and that's obviously completely wrong.  

But when right wing people say "we can't let people vote for socialism" or "we can't let people vote themselves more money," that's equally wrong.  Right wingers should work to convince people to their way of thinking, so voters don't want to vote themselves more money, but the Constitution provides absolutely no refuge to anyone who wants to prevent adults from voting on any topic they want to vote on.

Thanks for clarifying your opinion of the 1st Amendment.  I think we all know where you stand on the 2nd.  How many others would you like to abolish?

I didn't say people speaking against the constitution should be punished in most circumstances.   I said in extreme circumstances it can become necessary to punish them in order to preserve the union.  And the main point was that if circumstances do become that extreme, both the right and the left will need to change the way they've been talking.

---

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

Because, it will deny me my “inalienable rights” if those laws get in my way of Life, Liberty and stops me from pursuing Happiness then it’s my right, no my duty to fight that by any means necessary. And that is what the framers had in mind.

“Congress shall pass no law”

Look it up chief

Yeah that's completely incorrect.

---

It is huh, care to elaborate?

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

Yeah that's completely incorrect.

---

It is huh, care to elaborate?

Here's the part you seem to like:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

And heres the next sentence:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

So as long as the government in power has "the consent of the governed" it would be wrong for you to attempt to "alter or abolish" it.  At the time those words were written, consent existed in a complex and contradictory mess of pledges and charters.  But now we have voting.  The person or idea that wins the election has the consent of the governed, and the one who tries to toss the election result, as Trump tried to, is only inviting further chaos and civil war.  We can make a list of people who tried to stay in power despite losing popular elections.  Nicholas Maduro is a recent example.  Vladimir Lenin is a more distant one.  Is that the company you would keep?

---

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

It is huh, care to elaborate?

Here's the part you seem to like:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

And heres the next sentence:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

So as long as the government in power has "the consent of the governed" it would be wrong for you to attempt to "alter or abolish" it.  At the time those words were written, consent existed in a complex and contradictory mess of pledges and charters.  But now we have voting.  The person or idea that wins the election has the consent of the governed, and the one who tries to toss the election result, as Trump tried to, is only inviting further chaos and civil war.  We can make a list of people who tried to stay in power despite losing popular elections.  Nicholas Maduro is a recent example.  Vladimir Lenin is a more distant one.  Is that the company you would keep?

Congress shall make no laws that interfere with my inalienable rights. When they infringe upon those rights then all bets are off, period…

When they steal an election then all bets are off. And they did steal the election, regardless of what the people that perpetuated this theft say. The proof is there. Don’t worry, When Kari Lake wins in AZ, she will expose it again. A reckoning is coming..

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

Here's the part you seem to like:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

And heres the next sentence:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

So as long as the government in power has "the consent of the governed" it would be wrong for you to attempt to "alter or abolish" it.  At the time those words were written, consent existed in a complex and contradictory mess of pledges and charters.  But now we have voting.  The person or idea that wins the election has the consent of the governed, and the one who tries to toss the election result, as Trump tried to, is only inviting further chaos and civil war.  We can make a list of people who tried to stay in power despite losing popular elections.  Nicholas Maduro is a recent example.  Vladimir Lenin is a more distant one.  Is that the company you would keep?

Congress shall make no laws that interfere with my inalienable rights. When they infringe upon those rights then all bets are off, period…

When they steal an election then all bets are off. And they did steal the election, regardless of what the people that perpetuated this theft say. The proof is there. Don’t worry, When Kari Lake wins in AZ, she will expose it again. A reckoning is coming..

I agree that if there was actual evidence that the election was stolen, most of what you're talking about becomes justifiable.

---

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

On its face, this certainly doesn't look good. 

Cruz Grills FBI Director: The Guy In Charge Of The Whitmer Kidnapping Entrapment Plot Got Promoted And Is Now In Charge Of The J-6 Case? | Video | RealClearPolitics

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/..._case.html

It pays to be corrupt. People wonder why this country is being unraveled... I mean critical thinking types, not the puppets. It's this type of cronyism that gets you promoted.

---

On its face, this certainly doesn't look good. 

Cruz Grills FBI Director: The Guy In Charge Of The Whitmer Kidnapping Entrapment Plot Got Promoted And Is Now In Charge Of The J-6 Case? | Video | RealClearPolitics

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/..._case.html

Wray, who was appointed by President Trump, seems to be saying that he doesn't hold that guy accountable for the Whitmer operation. That it was run out of the Detroit office but the guy in charge of that office wasn't accountable for it.  Sounds fishy of course but who knows what the authority structure there actually is.
You also have to remember that the FBI doesn't prosecute.  The US atty for the eastern district of Michigan also thought the case was strong enough to bring it to court.  I wonder what the story was there.

---

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

The story was the story.

---

On its face, this certainly doesn't look good. 

Cruz Grills FBI Director: The Guy In Charge Of The Whitmer Kidnapping Entrapment Plot Got Promoted And Is Now In Charge Of The J-6 Case? | Video | RealClearPolitics

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/..._case.html

Wray, who was appointed by President Trump, seems to be saying that he doesn't hold that guy accountable for the Whitmer operation. That it was run out of the Detroit office but the guy in charge of that office wasn't accountable for it.  Sounds fishy of course but who knows what the authority structure there actually is.
You also have to remember that the FBI doesn't prosecute.  The US atty for the eastern district of Michigan also thought the case was strong enough to bring it to court.  I wonder what the story was there.

God love you Mike but are you capable of critical thinking?  Scratch that, objective thinking?  Look at this not through the lens of how much you hate DJT but objectively.  Substitute any name you choose and reread that.  The FBI leadership is complacent and has chosen a side on a federal level.  That alone should send chills up your spine regardless of where you stand politically.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.