---

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

Let's assume everything on there is factually accurate.
The one row that is missing should look something like this
On the left, "continuity of the Constitution not threatened" and on the right, "continuity of the Constitution  threatened."
Some places are more important than others, and some days are more important than others.

---

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

Never mind the fact that most of the more radical protesters from George Floyd want the Constitution abolished. We can overlook that part, I guess. You are just so naive, dude.

---

Let's assume everything on there is factually accurate.
The one row that is missing should look something like this
On the left, "continuity of the Constitution not threatened" and on the right, "continuity of the Constitution  threatened."
Some places are more important than others, and some days are more important than others.

The sad thing is, you believe that garbage. It was in DEFENSE of the Constitution that those American loving Patriots showed up at the capital. And lets be clear, the FBI was actively encouraging and enabling the breech into the capital, ROY EPPS, not to mention the 20 ton door that someone just happened to open up so everyone could pour in. Admit it, you are NO Republican and have never been a Republican and you are just a parrot for MSNBC... You obviously lack the ability to think critically for yourself.

---

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

Never mind the fact that most of the more radical protesters from George Floyd want the Constitution abolished. We can overlook that part, I guess. You are just so naive, dude.

I pay attention to what people do, not what they say.  And especially not what you say they say. 
"most of the more radical".  You realize that's a meaningless statement, right?
If I polled all of the protestors, and most of them were in favor of continuing the constitution,  you would say, "well you were supposed to look at the more radical ones only."
If I tried to do that, and still a majority of these were for continuing the constitution, then you'd say, "those were just the radicals.  I'm talking about the "more" radicals."
And on we would go until I found a group small enough to make your statement true.  
That's what we call a tautology.  It's meaningless.  With weasel words it proves nothing.

---

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

Never mind the fact that most of the more radical protesters from George Floyd want the Constitution abolished. We can overlook that part, I guess. You are just so naive, dude.

I pay attention to what people do, not what they say.  And especially not what you say they say. 
"most of the more radical".  You realize that's a meaningless statement, right?
If I polled all of the protestors, and most of them were in favor of continuing the constitution,  you would say, "well you were supposed to look at the more radical ones only."
If I tried to do that, and still a majority of these were for continuing the constitution, then you'd say, "those were just the radicals.  I'm talking about the "more" radicals."
And one we would go until I found a group small enough to make your statement true.  
That's what we call a tautology.  It's meaningless.  With weasel words it proves nothing.

I dare you to go into those crowds and ask what they think of the Constitution, you know, the right to bear arms, the right to freedom of speech. Those freaks are anti American FASCIST and YOU are defending them, let that soak in... YOU ARE DEFENDING REAL FASCIST... take your faux outrage somewhere else, we ALL see the truth now, well except you.

---

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

Let's assume everything on there is factually accurate.
The one row that is missing should look something like this
On the left, "continuity of the Constitution not threatened" and on the right, "continuity of the Constitution  threatened."
Some places are more important than others, and some days are more important than others.

Still an incredibly lopsided chart in disfavor of the Democrats.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

I pay attention to what people do, not what they say.  And especially not what you say they say. 
"most of the more radical".  You realize that's a meaningless statement, right?
If I polled all of the protestors, and most of them were in favor of continuing the constitution,  you would say, "well you were supposed to look at the more radical ones only."
If I tried to do that, and still a majority of these were for continuing the constitution, then you'd say, "those were just the radicals.  I'm talking about the "more" radicals."
And one we would go until I found a group small enough to make your statement true.  
That's what we call a tautology.  It's meaningless.  With weasel words it proves nothing.

I dare you to go into those crowds and ask what they think of the Constitution, you know, the right to bear arms, the right to freedom of speech. Those freaks are anti American FASCIST and YOU are defending them, let that soak in... YOU ARE DEFENDING REAL FASCIST... take your faux outrage somewhere else, we ALL see the truth now, well except you.

I have two kids.  One is easily scared by yelling.  But it has no effect on the other.  She takes after me.  Your all caps means nothing to me.

Both the right to bear arms and the freedom of speech are subject to *some* regulation by law.  You can't have a select fire gun, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, etc.  So you can be for a new, stricter regulation of these and still be in favor of the constitution, as long as you wanted it imposed by a legislature's vote and a governor's signature, and as long as you would abide by judicial review.

Both the right to bear arms and the freedom of speech are also subject to the Article V process,  that is, subject to elimination by future amendments to the constitution.   So you could even be for the abolition of both amendments, and still have claim to being for the constitution, as long as you only wanted to eliminate those rights by the Article V process, and as long as you upheld both rights up until the time that the Constitution was actually amended.

You could also claim to be in favor of Presidents being appointed for life, or of the right to select the next President devolving to whichever unarmed mob overtakes the Capitol building first, and still claim to be in favor of the Constitution,  as long as you wanted these changes made by an Article V process, and as long as you abided by the existing process for selecting the President, and the existing terms of service and term limits, until that time.  

However, if you claim to be in favor of the constitution,  you cannot be in favor of a mob trying to intimidate Congress into submission, not in 2021 before any such amendment existed.

---

Let's assume everything on there is factually accurate.
The one row that is missing should look something like this
On the left, "continuity of the Constitution not threatened" and on the right, "continuity of the Constitution  threatened."
Some places are more important than others, and some days are more important than others.

Still an incredibly lopsided chart in disfavor of the Democrats.

The constitution is more important than money or buildings.  I wouldn't say it's more important than lives, but the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been spent defending it do imply otherwise.

---

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

I dare you to go into those crowds and ask what they think of the Constitution, you know, the right to bear arms, the right to freedom of speech. Those freaks are anti American FASCIST and YOU are defending them, let that soak in... YOU ARE DEFENDING REAL FASCIST... take your faux outrage somewhere else, we ALL see the truth now, well except you.

I have two kids.  One is easily scared by yelling.  But it has no effect on the other.  She takes after me.  Your all caps means nothing to me.

Both the right to bear arms and the freedom of speech are subject to *some* regulation by law.  You can't have a select fire gun, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, etc.  So you can be for a new, stricter regulation of these and still be in favor of the constitution, as long as you wanted it imposed by a legislature's vote and a governor's signature, and as long as you would abide by judicial review.

Both the right to bear arms and the freedom of speech are also subject to the Article V process,  that is, subject to elimination by future amendments to the constitution.   So you could even be for the abolition of both amendments, and still have claim to being for the constitution, as long as you only wanted to eliminate those rights by the Article V process, and as long as you upheld both rights up until the time that the Constitution was actually amended.

You could also claim to be in favor of Presidents being appointed for life, or of the right to select the next President devolving to whichever unarmed mob overtakes the Capitol building first, and still claim to be in favor of the Constitution,  as long as you wanted these changes made by an Article V process, and as long as you abided by the existing process for selecting the President, and the existing terms of service and term limits, until that time.  

However, if you claim to be in favor of the constitution,  you cannot be in favor of a mob trying to intimidate Congress into submission, not in 2021 before any such amendment existed.

---

Still an incredibly lopsided chart in disfavor of the Democrats.

The constitution is more important than money or buildings.  I wouldn't say it's more important than lives, but the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been spent defending it do imply otherwise.

Unless they are BLM attacking the capital or pro-choice Militia trying to intimidate Supreme Court Judges? Right? 

Look Man , the right to free speech and having arms to protect ourselves are the bedrock of this Republic, number one and two, for a reason. The Bill Of Rights. The government shall not infringe upon those rights, not unless they want a fight 

It’s no coincidence the government has been so good at putting everyone into all the tiny groups. Then they throw their support behind left wing groups by not convicting their crimes and all the other stupid crap they let the left get away with. 

It’s obvious our current government is up to bad things. They almost got what they want; a country so divided and weak and unable to travel because energy prices are so high, that any local resistance would easily be crushed, armed or not. 

You should celebrate, the end of this Republic may be closer than we think. All they need now is a war…

---

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

Never mind the fact that most of the more radical protesters from George Floyd want the Constitution abolished. We can overlook that part, I guess. You are just so naive, dude.

I pay attention to what people do, not what they say.  And especially not what you say they say. 
"most of the more radical".  You realize that's a meaningless statement, right?
If I polled all of the protestors, and most of them were in favor of continuing the constitution,  you would say, "well you were supposed to look at the more radical ones only."
If I tried to do that, and still a majority of these were for continuing the constitution, then you'd say, "those were just the radicals.  I'm talking about the "more" radicals."
And on we would go until I found a group small enough to make your statement true.  
That's what we call a tautology.  It's meaningless.  With weasel words it proves nothing.

Not when it comes to your politicians. You are the walking embodiment of hypocrisy. 

I said most of the more radical protestors to avoid a meaningless argument about what "radical" means, but I'll hold down this red herring. If I took your stupidity at face value, it would almost make sense, except I'm not trying to use rhetoric to justify my point. The reason the group I mentioned is important is because they are the ones that are influencing the radical democratic policies we are seeing AND THAT IS WHAT MATTERS. CRT? Where's that coming from? The end goal of CRT is literal dismantling of the American constitution. Redistribution of wealth in the name of equity? Where's that coming from? How does that fit with our Constitution? Dismantling the patriarchal family structure? Defund the police? Where'd that come from? You know which police we aren't defunding? Capitol police. They are expanding into other states besides DC. I could keep going. These are all policies that are being implemented on the coattails of these radicals. They want to overthrow the American system, and if you were half as well read as you think, you would understand that better.

---

I pay attention to what people do, not what they say.  And especially not what you say they say. 
"most of the more radical".  You realize that's a meaningless statement, right?
If I polled all of the protestors, and most of them were in favor of continuing the constitution,  you would say, "well you were supposed to look at the more radical ones only."
If I tried to do that, and still a majority of these were for continuing the constitution, then you'd say, "those were just the radicals.  I'm talking about the "more" radicals."
And on we would go until I found a group small enough to make your statement true.  
That's what we call a tautology.  It's meaningless.  With weasel words it proves nothing.

Not when it comes to your politicians. You are the walking embodiment of hypocrisy. 

I said most of the more radical protestors to avoid a meaningless argument about what "radical" means, but I'll hold down this red herring. If I took your stupidity at face value, it would almost make sense, except I'm not trying to use rhetoric to justify my point. The reason the group I mentioned is important is because they are the ones that are influencing the radical democratic policies we are seeing AND THAT IS WHAT MATTERS. CRT? Where's that coming from? The end goal of CRT is literal dismantling of the American constitution. Redistribution of wealth in the name of equity? Where's that coming from? How does that fit with our Constitution? Dismantling the patriarchal family structure? Defund the police? Where'd that come from? You know which police we aren't defunding? Capitol police. They are expanding into other states besides DC. I could keep going. These are all policies that are being implemented on the coattails of these radicals. They want to overthrow the American system, and if you were half as well read as you think, you would understand that better.

One of the state reps in this area is Anna Eskamani.  She's a new face who ran on a defend the police platform.
Her one achievement last session was state funds to help the city of Belle isle build a new police station.  
Pay attention to what they do, not what they say.

---

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

Lol. Like I said. You're the walking embodiment of hypocrisy. Maybe if I did a search, I could find a post where you miss the point then bloviate about reductionism. Oh wait, I don't have to... it was 4 posts ago. Try walking the walk every once in a while. 

And on we would go until I found a group small enough to make your statement true. 
That's what we call a tautology.  It's meaningless.  With weasel words it proves nothing.

---

Watching this hearing on TV.. So fricken hilarious. What a circus lolol

Yeah, the far right and antifa caused some trouble on Jan 6th, but these clowns are blaming Trump lolololol

I will never vote for another democrat again for the rest of my life.. Matter of fact, I think I'd vote for Satan before i'd ever vote for a democrat. What a bunch of butt hurt clowns lol

---

Watching this hearing on TV.. So fricken hilarious. What a circus lolol

Yeah, the far right and antifa caused some trouble on Jan 6th, but these clowns are blaming Trump lolololol

I will never vote for another democrat again for the rest of my life.. Matter of fact, I think I'd vote for Satan before i'd ever vote for a democrat. What a bunch of butt hurt clowns lol

Supposedly Trump demanded equal time today but I don't have truth social to confirm it. You remember those stupid FTC changes the dems wanted about equal time for political things? Trump hasn't conceded and is still technically a politician.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

I haven’t been watching this clown show but Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony made big news yesterday. She testified that Trump assaulted one of his Secret Service agents and ‘lunged for the steering wheel’ when they refused to take him to the Capitol. Of course none of those testifying are being cross-examined because the only Republicans allowed on the committee are RINO Adam Kinzinger and anti-Trumper Liz Cheney.

Welp: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-...pitol-riot

---

I haven’t been watching this clown show but Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony made big news yesterday. She testified that Trump assaulted one of his Secret Service agents and ‘lunged for the steering wheel’ when they refused to take him to the Capitol. Of course none of those testifying are being cross-examined because the only Republicans allowed on the committee are RINO Adam Kinzinger and anti-Trumper Liz Cheney.

Welp: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-...pitol-riot

“The January 6 Committee’s credibility suffered a serious blow on Tuesday when reports surfaced that the lead Secret Service agent in charge of former President Trump’s security detail that day would contradict testimony delivered from star witness Cassidy Hutchinson.”

Fox News is a left wing rag, just like the rest of them…

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/...testimony/

---

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

I haven’t been watching this clown show but Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony made big news yesterday. She testified that Trump assaulted one of his Secret Service agents and ‘lunged for the steering wheel’ when they refused to take him to the Capitol. Of course none of those testifying are being cross-examined because the only Republicans allowed on the committee are RINO Adam Kinzinger and anti-Trumper Liz Cheney.

Welp: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-...pitol-riot

Plenty of Republicans are allowed on the committee- it was Kevin McCarthy who decided the Republicans would boycott the committee. 

Granted a couple of Republicans were excluded but Kevin McCarthy himself could've sat on that committee if he wanted to.  And most of the other Republicans could've sat on it too.  They decided not to.

This was either a major strategic error by the Republicans or they have decided to quietly walk away from Trump and leave him to the mercy of the committee without any defense.

 I will grant you it is a one-sided show.  On the other hand these people are under oath.  And most of the damaging testimony has come from Trump's own people.

I will admit though that I am not actually watching the hearings I'm only reading about them.  I'm not gonna waste my time with people telling me what I already know.

---

I haven’t been watching this clown show but Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony made big news yesterday. She testified that Trump assaulted one of his Secret Service agents and ‘lunged for the steering wheel’ when they refused to take him to the Capitol. Of course none of those testifying are being cross-examined because the only Republicans allowed on the committee are RINO Adam Kinzinger and anti-Trumper Liz Cheney.

Welp: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-...pitol-riot

Plenty of Republicans are allowed on the committee- it was Kevin McCarthy who decided the Republicans would boycott the committee. 

Granted a couple of Republicans were excluded but Kevin McCarthy himself could've sat on that committee if he wanted to.  And most of the other Republicans could've sat on it too.  They decided not to.

This was either a major strategic error by the Republicans or they have decided to quietly walk away from Trump and leave him to the mercy of the committee without any defense.

 I will grant you it is a one-sided show.  On the other hand these people are under oath.  And most of the damaging testimony has come from Trump's own people.

I will admit though that I am not actually watching the hearings I'm only reading about them.  I'm not gonna waste my time with people telling me what I already know.

Pelosi rejected the two nominees who would best serve to keep the procedures somewhat honest. We all know why.

https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status...stimony%2F

---

Plenty of Republicans are allowed on the committee- it was Kevin McCarthy who decided the Republicans would boycott the committee. 

Granted a couple of Republicans were excluded but Kevin McCarthy himself could've sat on that committee if he wanted to.  And most of the other Republicans could've sat on it too.  They decided not to.

This was either a major strategic error by the Republicans or they have decided to quietly walk away from Trump and leave him to the mercy of the committee without any defense.

 I will grant you it is a one-sided show.  On the other hand these people are under oath.  And most of the damaging testimony has come from Trump's own people.

I will admit though that I am not actually watching the hearings I'm only reading about them.  I'm not gonna waste my time with people telling me what I already know.

Pelosi rejected the two nominees who would best serve to keep the procedures somewhat honest. We all know why.

https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status...stimony%2F

The lady's testimony was secondhand anyhow.  First we need to hear from this Ornato person.  Did he actually tell her that, and who did he hear that from.  If Ornato says under oath that the drivers told him about "lunging for the wheel" day of, that would suggest that the drivers are changing their story now.

---

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

Pelosi rejected the two nominees who would best serve to keep the procedures somewhat honest. We all know why.

https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status...stimony%2F

The lady's testimony was secondhand anyhow.  First we need to hear from this Ornato person.  Did he actually tell her that, and who did he hear that from.  If Ornato says under oath that the drivers told him about "lunging for the wheel" day of, that would suggest that the drivers are changing their story now.

See, even when presented with EVIDENCE that she was LYING, you still refuse to accept the truth because it doesn't fit your leftist propaganda. Yep, you are a liberal troll, nothing more.

---

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