Werewolf said:

---

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

Putin and the Oligarchs live off their primary source. Oil! I would have stopped all buying of oil from Russia as well as find every means possible to get more supply domestically and sell it into Europe. This would have killed Putin!. Remember, the Oligarch's are only skimmer's off the profits and Putin allows it to happen.

---

Our current administration will never allow this to happen. Whitmer is trying to have yet another line shut down in Michigan.

---

Isn't that sad? Like I said earlier, we don't need China to cause is to crumble. In fact, we are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves…

---

Almost makes you wonder if it's intentional, doesn't it!

---

Doesn't make me wonder at all. I'm confident!

---

Werewolf said:

---

https://newspunch.com/disney-executive-pedophile-ring/

Just under the surface and ignored by the Corporate media........with massive #'s of arrests having already been made globally over the last 3-4 years. Been waiting to see how this plays out with the forthcoming truths. Will tie into Epstein Island and those who visited at some point in time.

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

Putin and the Oligarchs live off their primary source. Oil! I would have stopped all buying of oil from Russia as well as find every means possible to get more supply domestically and sell it into Europe. This would have killed Putin!. Remember, the Oligarch's are only skimmer's off the profits and Putin allows it to happen.

---

Our current administration will never allow this to happen. Whitmer is trying to have yet another line shut down in Michigan.

---

Isn't that sad? Like I said earlier, we don't need China to cause is to crumble. In fact, we are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves…

---

Almost makes you wonder if it's intentional, doesn't it!

---

Doesn't make me wonder at all. I'm confident!

---

OK....i just want to make sure I understand....you two are accusing US lawmakers of intentionally trying to harm the US economy in order to benefit China/Russia/others?
Not just applying different political / economic beliefs impacted by environment and other factors....but actual sabotage?

(When you say you are confident that it is intentional...I'm not sure there is a different way to interpret)

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

Putin and the Oligarchs live off their primary source. Oil! I would have stopped all buying of oil from Russia as well as find every means possible to get more supply domestically and sell it into Europe. This would have killed Putin!. Remember, the Oligarch's are only skimmer's off the profits and Putin allows it to happen.

---

Our current administration will never allow this to happen. Whitmer is trying to have yet another line shut down in Michigan.

---

Isn't that sad? Like I said earlier, we don't need China to cause is to crumble. In fact, we are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves…

---

Almost makes you wonder if it's intentional, doesn't it!

---

Doesn't make me wonder at all. I'm confident!

---

OK....i just want to make sure I understand....you two are accusing US lawmakers of intentionally trying to harm the US economy in order to benefit China/Russia/others?
Not just applying different political / economic beliefs impacted by environment and other factors....but actual sabotage?

(When you say you are confident that it is intentional...I'm not sure there is a different way to interpret)

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Why do you think The term nationalist or populist is a negative? I don't think that way. It's just the definition of your positions. That's all. I just don't happen to agree with those stances.

I have told you what we should do, In fact several times. And I love answered your questions several times. Im not sure I can be any more clear.

Again, my position. I'm order to kill ioff the supply of illegal means of entry - I.e. paying coyotes or the cartels to cross illegally, you have to increase the supply of legal means of entry.

So, I'll give you an example of this means. It used to be that Mexican nationals could gain daily work entry into the US to work primarily as farmers. Why not reinstate that?

---

Simple, it's taken as a negative because when you disagree with someone you throw out these names and titles. You and others have done it several times. You project it as a negative.

And no, you haven't once answered my question with regard to immigration. All you've said is that it needs to be opened up. You haven't mentioned one part of the process you would want to see, until just now regarding the farming permits.

I'll take the label "nationalist" if it means standing up for our country. When someone says or country is under attack, it is, but from an internal enemy. I'm proud of what this country has done in regards to foreign aid throughout the years. But, when things are not good at home, we can't keep doing what we've done.

It's okay that you disagree. But, when you disagree, give no understanding of your argument, and throw names around. Sorry, but yes, it comes across as a negative slander. B

---

that's a fair critique Steve and I appreciate it. I don't think that was my intent but I can see how it comes across that way.

As far as exact policy, I'm not a 100% expert on how everything works, but a broad general understanding based on what I've read has formed my opinion that there needs to be more avenues and speed to legal immigration or work permits in order for illegal immigration to go away. I've come to the conclusion that's that really is going to be the only way. Walls and policing only work for as long as the party in office that supports that stance. Amnesty only encourages more illegal immigration.

This has been an issue for almost 40 years and the same solutions are being applied to both sides - walls and enforcement or amnesty. Neither to me is a viable solution. All those two options do is allow for politicians to rile you up so that you donate to their campaign. But they aren't real solutions to the problem, it's just a bandaid

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Why do you think The term nationalist or populist is a negative? I don't think that way. It's just the definition of your positions. That's all. I just don't happen to agree with those stances.

I have told you what we should do, In fact several times. And I love answered your questions several times. Im not sure I can be any more clear.

Again, my position. I'm order to kill ioff the supply of illegal means of entry - I.e. paying coyotes or the cartels to cross illegally, you have to increase the supply of legal means of entry.

So, I'll give you an example of this means. It used to be that Mexican nationals could gain daily work entry into the US to work primarily as farmers. Why not reinstate that?

---

Simple, it's taken as a negative because when you disagree with someone you throw out these names and titles. You and others have done it several times. You project it as a negative.

And no, you haven't once answered my question with regard to immigration. All you've said is that it needs to be opened up. You haven't mentioned one part of the process you would want to see, until just now regarding the farming permits.

I'll take the label "nationalist" if it means standing up for our country. When someone says or country is under attack, it is, but from an internal enemy. I'm proud of what this country has done in regards to foreign aid throughout the years. But, when things are not good at home, we can't keep doing what we've done.

It's okay that you disagree. But, when you disagree, give no understanding of your argument, and throw names around. Sorry, but yes, it comes across as a negative slander.

---

I think this is a bit overstated...but, to your point, Id guess at least half the country, maybe more, believe that threat is from folks who were in DC last Jan 6 who kind of lean towards that diehard America only agenda. And then the people who watch all of that, and somehow come to belief those actions were made up.

The reality (in my mind) is that it is the fringes on both sides that are the risk. Probably as it always has been. Just more of a voice now.

---

That's fine, but half the country? That's an overstatement. The only ones that believe that are still falling for the BS from our MSM and still can't get over their emotions against Trump. Yes it was a bad day, yes it was a bad image. But to say it was the worst day in history? Not even close.

The US has always been the top dog when it comes to world stage. We've managed to defeat communism and dictators at every turn. Now, in the last 2 years, we've done nothing but empower Russia and China. Now we're talking about buying oil from Venezuela. Everything that was fought against during the cold War starting 40+ years ago, has almost been completely undone in 2 years.

And your only focus is Jan 6? Are you kidding me!

---

Who said it was the worst day in history -- again, you add your own bias to try to make something I said more negative than I said it. I notice you do this a lot.

A bad image....i mean people breaking into the Capitol. Breaking things. Spraying with bear spray (that one action alone should stop all the "peaceful intentions" nonsense). That is a bit more than "a bad image".

Lets be real...if Antifa or some group protesting a person killed by a cop, you and otehrs would have rightly treated it as a very serious offense. Not just a "bad image"

Is it the worst day? Of course not, when you have OKC bombing, the WTC attack, and other such events. But I will say unlike those other events, in this case you had an angry leader riling up an angry audience....so, that does make it bad.

And your last comment...again, you come on hear and say you want to have discussion...so stop with the making things up that were not said. I just said BOTH the far left and far right. Antifa is every bit as bad and violent. That is not close to your summary.

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

Putin and the Oligarchs live off their primary source. Oil! I would have stopped all buying of oil from Russia as well as find every means possible to get more supply domestically and sell it into Europe. This would have killed Putin!. Remember, the Oligarch's are only skimmer's off the profits and Putin allows it to happen.

---

Our current administration will never allow this to happen. Whitmer is trying to have yet another line shut down in Michigan.

---

Isn't that sad? Like I said earlier, we don't need China to cause is to crumble. In fact, we are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves…

---

Almost makes you wonder if it's intentional, doesn't it!

---

Doesn't make me wonder at all. I'm confident!

---

OK....i just want to make sure I understand....you two are accusing US lawmakers of intentionally trying to harm the US economy in order to benefit China/Russia/others?
Not just applying different political / economic beliefs impacted by environment and other factors....but actual sabotage?

(When you say you are confident that it is intentional...I'm not sure there is a different way to interpret)

---

Chem, the reason I say I'm confident was a little exaggeration…

That said, I am not confident that lawmakers do/vote with the best interest of all Americans. I believe they think about their own interest before anything else. That includes both party's.

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

Putin and the Oligarchs live off their primary source. Oil! I would have stopped all buying of oil from Russia as well as find every means possible to get more supply domestically and sell it into Europe. This would have killed Putin!. Remember, the Oligarch's are only skimmer's off the profits and Putin allows it to happen.

---

Our current administration will never allow this to happen. Whitmer is trying to have yet another line shut down in Michigan.

---

Isn't that sad? Like I said earlier, we don't need China to cause is to crumble. In fact, we are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves…

---

Almost makes you wonder if it's intentional, doesn't it!

---

Doesn't make me wonder at all. I'm confident!

---

OK....i just want to make sure I understand....you two are accusing US lawmakers of intentionally trying to harm the US economy in order to benefit China/Russia/others?
Not just applying different political / economic beliefs impacted by environment and other factors....but actual sabotage?

(When you say you are confident that it is intentional...I'm not sure there is a different way to interpret)

---

Chem, the reason I say I'm confident was a little exaggeration…

That said, I am not confident that lawmakers do/vote with the best interest of all Americans. I believe they think about their own interest before anything else. That includes both party's.

---

That is a wholly and importantly, different conclusion than your earlier comment.

I think we'd be hard-pressed to find many Americans who do not agree with your modified statement, however. Of course, our degree of frustration with those folks, like our distaste for media, generally aligns very much with whether we agree politically with them or not.

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Why do you think The term nationalist or populist is a negative? I don't think that way. It's just the definition of your positions. That's all. I just don't happen to agree with those stances.

I have told you what we should do, In fact several times. And I love answered your questions several times. Im not sure I can be any more clear.

Again, my position. I'm order to kill ioff the supply of illegal means of entry - I.e. paying coyotes or the cartels to cross illegally, you have to increase the supply of legal means of entry.

So, I'll give you an example of this means. It used to be that Mexican nationals could gain daily work entry into the US to work primarily as farmers. Why not reinstate that?

---

Simple, it's taken as a negative because when you disagree with someone you throw out these names and titles. You and others have done it several times. You project it as a negative.

And no, you haven't once answered my question with regard to immigration. All you've said is that it needs to be opened up. You haven't mentioned one part of the process you would want to see, until just now regarding the farming permits.

I'll take the label "nationalist" if it means standing up for our country. When someone says or country is under attack, it is, but from an internal enemy. I'm proud of what this country has done in regards to foreign aid throughout the years. But, when things are not good at home, we can't keep doing what we've done.

It's okay that you disagree. But, when you disagree, give no understanding of your argument, and throw names around. Sorry, but yes, it comes across as a negative slander.

---

I think this is a bit overstated...but, to your point, Id guess at least half the country, maybe more, believe that threat is from folks who were in DC last Jan 6 who kind of lean towards that diehard America only agenda. And then the people who watch all of that, and somehow come to belief those actions were made up.

The reality (in my mind) is that it is the fringes on both sides that are the risk. Probably as it always has been. Just more of a voice now.

---

That's fine, but half the country? That's an overstatement. The only ones that believe that are still falling for the BS from our MSM and still can't get over their emotions against Trump. Yes it was a bad day, yes it was a bad image. But to say it was the worst day in history? Not even close.

The US has always been the top dog when it comes to world stage. We've managed to defeat communism and dictators at every turn. Now, in the last 2 years, we've done nothing but empower Russia and China. Now we're talking about buying oil from Venezuela. Everything that was fought against during the cold War starting 40+ years ago, has almost been completely undone in 2 years.

And your only focus is Jan 6? Are you kidding me!

---

Who said it was the worst day in history -- again, you add your own bias to try to make something I said more negative than I said it. I notice you do this a lot.

A bad image....i mean people breaking into the Capitol. Breaking things. Spraying with bear spray (that one action alone should stop all the "peaceful intentions" nonsense). That is a bit more than "a bad image".

Lets be real...if Antifa or some group protesting a person killed by a cop, you and otehrs would have rightly treated it as a very serious offense. Not just a "bad image"

Is it the worst day? Of course not, when you have OKC bombing, the WTC attack, and other such events. But I will say unlike those other events, in this case you had an angry leader riling up an angry audience....so, that does make it bad.

And your last comment...again, you come on hear and say you want to have discussion...so stop with the making things up that were not said. I just said BOTH the far left and far right. Antifa is every bit as bad and violent. That is not close to your summary.

---

Chem, would you have the same belief if you found out that the majority of the people on Jan 6th (doing bad things) were not Trump supporters?

---

No offense...but are you serious? I mean....we had people invading (that is what we'd call it if it were our home) our Capitol. I'd be equally angered if it were Antifa or the New York Times editorial staff.
We should ALL be angered by it....yet we have people trying to minimize and justify it - not just here, but across the country.
I mean, the actions of criminals in Ferguson or Minneapolis or Charlotte after people were shot by cops was also atrocious, criminal, and should be prosecuted (and clearly caused more damage...sadly, often to people of color who owned businesses in the area).

To me, and I know this is where we differ....I feel like this was wholly preventable, but wholly propagated by the words of the POTUS. Specifically that day, but frankly, over the preceding couple of months, telling them over and over and over that they'd had an election stolen from them.

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

Putin and the Oligarchs live off their primary source. Oil! I would have stopped all buying of oil from Russia as well as find every means possible to get more supply domestically and sell it into Europe. This would have killed Putin!. Remember, the Oligarch's are only skimmer's off the profits and Putin allows it to happen.

---

Our current administration will never allow this to happen. Whitmer is trying to have yet another line shut down in Michigan.

---

Isn't that sad? Like I said earlier, we don't need China to cause is to crumble. In fact, we are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves…

---

Almost makes you wonder if it's intentional, doesn't it!

---

Doesn't make me wonder at all. I'm confident!

---

OK....i just want to make sure I understand....you two are accusing US lawmakers of intentionally trying to harm the US economy in order to benefit China/Russia/others?
Not just applying different political / economic beliefs impacted by environment and other factors....but actual sabotage?

(When you say you are confident that it is intentional...I'm not sure there is a different way to interpret)

---

Chem, the reason I say I'm confident was a little exaggeration…

That said, I am not confident that lawmakers do/vote with the best interest of all Americans. I believe they think about their own interest before anything else. That includes both party's.

---

That is a wholly and importantly, different conclusion than your earlier comment.

I think we'd be hard-pressed to find many Americans who do not agree with your modified statement, however. Of course, our degree of frustration with those folks, like our distaste for media, generally aligns very much with whether we agree politically with them or not.

---

I think I am consistent in my comments; so, please show me the communication that appears, to you, that are different conclusions.

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

"wholly propagated by the words of the POTUS"

This is where you lose me every time. First off, it was a bad day. But, it's not even the worst day the capital has ever experienced. That is a narrative continually propagated a corrupt media and folks like yourself, who have an emotional bias against Trump for not being "presidential" enough for your high standards.

You keep bringing up this point, even when nothing is relevant to it. Why are you so hung up on Jan 6? Why is it that you don't bring up any other riots that happened around the country, in the year leading up to Jan 6? You know the riots where the rioters killed people and police officers and did millions of dollars in damages. The same riots where our media stood in front of a burning building and said it was mostly peaceful. And the same riots that governed official, including the current VP, actually cheered and applauded, and told us they weren't going to and shouldn't stop. Why don't you bring those up?

Please, tell us why!

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Why do you think The term nationalist or populist is a negative? I don't think that way. It's just the definition of your positions. That's all. I just don't happen to agree with those stances.

I have told you what we should do, In fact several times. And I love answered your questions several times. Im not sure I can be any more clear.

Again, my position. I'm order to kill ioff the supply of illegal means of entry - I.e. paying coyotes or the cartels to cross illegally, you have to increase the supply of legal means of entry.

So, I'll give you an example of this means. It used to be that Mexican nationals could gain daily work entry into the US to work primarily as farmers. Why not reinstate that?

---

Simple, it's taken as a negative because when you disagree with someone you throw out these names and titles. You and others have done it several times. You project it as a negative.

And no, you haven't once answered my question with regard to immigration. All you've said is that it needs to be opened up. You haven't mentioned one part of the process you would want to see, until just now regarding the farming permits.

I'll take the label "nationalist" if it means standing up for our country. When someone says or country is under attack, it is, but from an internal enemy. I'm proud of what this country has done in regards to foreign aid throughout the years. But, when things are not good at home, we can't keep doing what we've done.

It's okay that you disagree. But, when you disagree, give no understanding of your argument, and throw names around. Sorry, but yes, it comes across as a negative slander.

---

I think this is a bit overstated...but, to your point, Id guess at least half the country, maybe more, believe that threat is from folks who were in DC last Jan 6 who kind of lean towards that diehard America only agenda. And then the people who watch all of that, and somehow come to belief those actions were made up.

The reality (in my mind) is that it is the fringes on both sides that are the risk. Probably as it always has been. Just more of a voice now.

---

That's fine, but half the country? That's an overstatement. The only ones that believe that are still falling for the BS from our MSM and still can't get over their emotions against Trump. Yes it was a bad day, yes it was a bad image. But to say it was the worst day in history? Not even close.

The US has always been the top dog when it comes to world stage. We've managed to defeat communism and dictators at every turn. Now, in the last 2 years, we've done nothing but empower Russia and China. Now we're talking about buying oil from Venezuela. Everything that was fought against during the cold War starting 40+ years ago, has almost been completely undone in 2 years.

And your only focus is Jan 6? Are you kidding me!

---

Who said it was the worst day in history -- again, you add your own bias to try to make something I said more negative than I said it. I notice you do this a lot.

A bad image....i mean people breaking into the Capitol. Breaking things. Spraying with bear spray (that one action alone should stop all the "peaceful intentions" nonsense). That is a bit more than "a bad image".

Lets be real...if Antifa or some group protesting a person killed by a cop, you and otehrs would have rightly treated it as a very serious offense. Not just a "bad image"

Is it the worst day? Of course not, when you have OKC bombing, the WTC attack, and other such events. But I will say unlike those other events, in this case you had an angry leader riling up an angry audience....so, that does make it bad.

And your last comment...again, you come on hear and say you want to have discussion...so stop with the making things up that were not said. I just said BOTH the far left and far right. Antifa is every bit as bad and violent. That is not close to your summary.

---

Chem, would you have the same belief if you found out that the majority of the people on Jan 6th (doing bad things) were not Trump supporters?

---

No offense...but are you serious? I mean....we had people invading (that is what we'd call it if it were our home) our Capitol. I'd be equally angered if it were Antifa or the New York Times editorial staff.
We should ALL be angered by it....yet we have people trying to minimize and justify it - not just here, but across the country.
I mean, the actions of criminals in Ferguson or Minneapolis or Charlotte after people were shot by cops was also atrocious, criminal, and should be prosecuted (and clearly caused more damage...sadly, often to people of color who owned businesses in the area).

To me, and I know this is where we differ....I feel like this was wholly preventable, but wholly propagated by the words of the POTUS. Specifically that day, but frankly, over the preceding couple of months, telling them over and over and over that they'd had an election stolen from them.

---

Actually, I was serious in my question... That you for being consistent in your outrage!!

I understand you think Trump initiated all this madness. You and I can disagree on that; so, it is what it is. For me, it looks as if we have a significant amount of unsolved involvement on January 6th. That said, none of us know for sure the details on that day. Unfortunately, the commission, from my perspective, is a sham with the conclusion already written by those on the committee.

So, I agree... we will not come to the same conclusion on the events of that day, although, I do agree the events of that day are not a good example of decency...

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

Putin and the Oligarchs live off their primary source. Oil! I would have stopped all buying of oil from Russia as well as find every means possible to get more supply domestically and sell it into Europe. This would have killed Putin!. Remember, the Oligarch's are only skimmer's off the profits and Putin allows it to happen.

---

Our current administration will never allow this to happen. Whitmer is trying to have yet another line shut down in Michigan.

---

Isn't that sad? Like I said earlier, we don't need China to cause is to crumble. In fact, we are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves…

---

Almost makes you wonder if it's intentional, doesn't it!

---

Doesn't make me wonder at all. I'm confident!

---

OK....i just want to make sure I understand....you two are accusing US lawmakers of intentionally trying to harm the US economy in order to benefit China/Russia/others?
Not just applying different political / economic beliefs impacted by environment and other factors....but actual sabotage?

(When you say you are confident that it is intentional...I'm not sure there is a different way to interpret)

---

Chem, the reason I say I'm confident was a little exaggeration…

That said, I am not confident that lawmakers do/vote with the best interest of all Americans. I believe they think about their own interest before anything else. That includes both party's.

---

That is a wholly and importantly, different conclusion than your earlier comment.

I think we'd be hard-pressed to find many Americans who do not agree with your modified statement, however. Of course, our degree of frustration with those folks, like our distaste for media, generally aligns very much with whether we agree politically with them or not.

---

I think I am consistent in my comments; so, please show me the communication that appears, to you, that are different conclusions.

---

You earlier said you thought US lawmakers were purposefully trying to hurt the US (then said it was slight over exaggeration). That is not nearly the same, to me, as saying, lawmakers are looking after their own best interests.

A person can look after their own constituents (or even own) best interests w/o purposefully trying to hurt the country, which is what you previously implied.

Its like when one of our players decides to test the pro market --- he's looking after his own best interests, but that doesn't mean he is actively seeking to hurt the team.

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Why do you think The term nationalist or populist is a negative? I don't think that way. It's just the definition of your positions. That's all. I just don't happen to agree with those stances.

I have told you what we should do, In fact several times. And I love answered your questions several times. Im not sure I can be any more clear.

Again, my position. I'm order to kill ioff the supply of illegal means of entry - I.e. paying coyotes or the cartels to cross illegally, you have to increase the supply of legal means of entry.

So, I'll give you an example of this means. It used to be that Mexican nationals could gain daily work entry into the US to work primarily as farmers. Why not reinstate that?

---

Simple, it's taken as a negative because when you disagree with someone you throw out these names and titles. You and others have done it several times. You project it as a negative.

And no, you haven't once answered my question with regard to immigration. All you've said is that it needs to be opened up. You haven't mentioned one part of the process you would want to see, until just now regarding the farming permits.

I'll take the label "nationalist" if it means standing up for our country. When someone says or country is under attack, it is, but from an internal enemy. I'm proud of what this country has done in regards to foreign aid throughout the years. But, when things are not good at home, we can't keep doing what we've done.

It's okay that you disagree. But, when you disagree, give no understanding of your argument, and throw names around. Sorry, but yes, it comes across as a negative slander.

---

I think this is a bit overstated...but, to your point, Id guess at least half the country, maybe more, believe that threat is from folks who were in DC last Jan 6 who kind of lean towards that diehard America only agenda. And then the people who watch all of that, and somehow come to belief those actions were made up.

The reality (in my mind) is that it is the fringes on both sides that are the risk. Probably as it always has been. Just more of a voice now.

---

That's fine, but half the country? That's an overstatement. The only ones that believe that are still falling for the BS from our MSM and still can't get over their emotions against Trump. Yes it was a bad day, yes it was a bad image. But to say it was the worst day in history? Not even close.

The US has always been the top dog when it comes to world stage. We've managed to defeat communism and dictators at every turn. Now, in the last 2 years, we've done nothing but empower Russia and China. Now we're talking about buying oil from Venezuela. Everything that was fought against during the cold War starting 40+ years ago, has almost been completely undone in 2 years.

And your only focus is Jan 6? Are you kidding me!

---

Who said it was the worst day in history -- again, you add your own bias to try to make something I said more negative than I said it. I notice you do this a lot.

A bad image....i mean people breaking into the Capitol. Breaking things. Spraying with bear spray (that one action alone should stop all the "peaceful intentions" nonsense). That is a bit more than "a bad image".

Lets be real...if Antifa or some group protesting a person killed by a cop, you and otehrs would have rightly treated it as a very serious offense. Not just a "bad image"

Is it the worst day? Of course not, when you have OKC bombing, the WTC attack, and other such events. But I will say unlike those other events, in this case you had an angry leader riling up an angry audience....so, that does make it bad.

And your last comment...again, you come on hear and say you want to have discussion...so stop with the making things up that were not said. I just said BOTH the far left and far right. Antifa is every bit as bad and violent. That is not close to your summary.

---

Chem, would you have the same belief if you found out that the majority of the people on Jan 6th (doing bad things) were not Trump supporters?

---

No offense...but are you serious? I mean....we had people invading (that is what we'd call it if it were our home) our Capitol. I'd be equally angered if it were Antifa or the New York Times editorial staff.
We should ALL be angered by it....yet we have people trying to minimize and justify it - not just here, but across the country.
I mean, the actions of criminals in Ferguson or Minneapolis or Charlotte after people were shot by cops was also atrocious, criminal, and should be prosecuted (and clearly caused more damage...sadly, often to people of color who owned businesses in the area).

To me, and I know this is where we differ....I feel like this was wholly preventable, but wholly propagated by the words of the POTUS. Specifically that day, but frankly, over the preceding couple of months, telling them over and over and over that they'd had an election stolen from them.

---

Actually, I was serious in my question... That you for being consistent in your outrage!!

I understand you think Trump initiated all this madness. You and I can disagree on that; so, it is what it is. For me, it looks as if we have a significant amount of unsolved involvement on January 6th. That said, none of us know for sure the details on that day. Unfortunately, the commission, from my perspective, is a sham with the conclusion already written by those on the committee.

So, I agree... we will not come to the same conclusion on the events of that day, although, I do agree the events of that day are not a good example of decency...

---

Yeah....when folks take bear spray into a city event (not Yellowstone National Park) and then spray it on a cop --- that is "not a good example of decency" lol.

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Okay, I put my foot in my mouth again. Again, I apologize. I thought this was still on the topic of the current administration decisions.

But the statement about the worst day for the capital was mine. I didn't say it was yours.

That's what happens when you wake up in the middle of a conversation! MST

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

caryking said:

---

Putin and the Oligarchs live off their primary source. Oil! I would have stopped all buying of oil from Russia as well as find every means possible to get more supply domestically and sell it into Europe. This would have killed Putin!. Remember, the Oligarch's are only skimmer's off the profits and Putin allows it to happen.

---

Our current administration will never allow this to happen. Whitmer is trying to have yet another line shut down in Michigan.

---

Isn't that sad? Like I said earlier, we don't need China to cause is to crumble. In fact, we are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves…

---

Almost makes you wonder if it's intentional, doesn't it!

---

Doesn't make me wonder at all. I'm confident!

---

OK....i just want to make sure I understand....you two are accusing US lawmakers of intentionally trying to harm the US economy in order to benefit China/Russia/others?
Not just applying different political / economic beliefs impacted by environment and other factors....but actual sabotage?

(When you say you are confident that it is intentional...I'm not sure there is a different way to interpret)

---

Chem, the reason I say I'm confident was a little exaggeration…

That said, I am not confident that lawmakers do/vote with the best interest of all Americans. I believe they think about their own interest before anything else. That includes both party's.

---

That is a wholly and importantly, different conclusion than your earlier comment.

I think we'd be hard-pressed to find many Americans who do not agree with your modified statement, however. Of course, our degree of frustration with those folks, like our distaste for media, generally aligns very much with whether we agree politically with them or not.

---

I think I am consistent in my comments; so, please show me the communication that appears, to you, that are different conclusions.

---

You earlier said you thought US lawmakers were purposefully trying to hurt the US (then said it was slight over exaggeration). That is not nearly the same, to me, as saying, lawmakers are looking after their own best interests.

A person can look after their own constituents (or even own) best interests w/o purposefully trying to hurt the country, which is what you previously implied.

Its like when one of our players decides to test the pro market --- he's looking after his own best interests, but that doesn't mean he is actively seeking to hurt the team.

---

A person can absolutely damage the US by looking after their own best interest. If you would look around and follow other outlets (that's an assumption you don't), you will see that lawmakers have personally profited off China's interest at the detriment of the US.

I believe I am very consistent with my post and/or beliefs.

BTW, your bolded segment is not even close to being the same. A player is to look after their best interest. That's called freedom! A representative is ONLY supposed to represent their constituents.

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

"wholly propagated by the words of the POTUS"

This is where you lose me every time. First off, it was a bad day. But, it's not even the worst day the capital has ever experienced. That is a narrative continually propagated a corrupt media and folks like yourself, who have an emotional bias against Trump for not being "presidential" enough for your high standards.

You keep bringing up this point, even when nothing is relevant to it. Why are you so hung up on Jan 6? Why is it that you don't bring up any other riots that happened around the country, in the year leading up to Jan 6? You know the riots where the rioters killed people and police officers and did millions of dollars in damages. The same riots where our media stood in front of a burning building and said it was mostly peaceful. And the same riots that governed official, including the current VP, actually cheered and applauded, and told us they weren't going to and shouldn't stop. Why don't you bring those up?

Please, tell us why!

---

How big a misrepresentation, really, is saying January 6 was the worst day the capital has experienced? The only way to minimize January 6 is to focus on the riot itself and not the circumstances that led to it happening. We've had other riots in this country before, right comrades? The rad-libs riot every time a cop kills a black person! They can't have it both ways, amirite, we've seen this before!!1

Really? We've had that before?

We've had riots incited by an outgoing and self-absorbed President, who for months had maintained he may not accept the results of the election and who was ultimately refusing to do exactly that, all because he was too little of a man to admit he got beat?

Riots where the outgoing President was literally on the phone while the riot was happening, pressuring his Vice President to overturn the results of the American presidential election?

Strictly from a historical perspective, how does that compare to past Presidential conduct in our history? Have we ever seen anything remotely resembling a President threatening not to transfer power, and then encouraging rioters and lobbying the Vice President on his behalf?

What makes January 6 so egregious is that it wasn't outsiders encouraging the riots and overthrowing the election results. It wasn't a foreign army in 1814. It was our own sitting President.

How people want to continue minimizing the literal and symbolic importance of that key distinction is beyond me.

---

I would argue that your historical perspective seems to be skewed...

Republican congressmen being shot by a worker for a democrat political candidate

FBI agents who supported the democrats spying on a political candidate of the minority party

FBI agents who supported the democrats using made up political dirt to get a FISA warrant to spy on a president of the opposition party

Highest elected members of the democrat party saying that the president is not legitimate for years after his election, going so far as to say that he colluded with a foreign power to cheat in the election and refusing to work with him on that basis

Washington DC being set on fire by democrats due to riots during the inauguration of Trump, complete with speakers at the political rally saying that they want to blow up the White House.

Democrat members of Congress telling people that they should go after members of the administration

The President of the United States having to be moved to a bunker under the White House while democrat protestors assaulted secret service members and tried to tear down a fence protecting the white house.

Republicans who were leaving the White House being assaulted by Democrats after Trump accepting the nomination to run for President again.

Democrat members of Congress (and a future VP) paying bail funds for people who were trying to burn down cities and federal court houses.

I can keep going if you would like...

---

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

"wholly propagated by the words of the POTUS"

This is where you lose me every time. First off, it was a bad day. But, it's not even the worst day the capital has ever experienced. That is a narrative continually propagated a corrupt media and folks like yourself, who have an emotional bias against Trump for not being "presidential" enough for your high standards.

You keep bringing up this point, even when nothing is relevant to it. Why are you so hung up on Jan 6? Why is it that you don't bring up any other riots that happened around the country, in the year leading up to Jan 6? You know the riots where the rioters killed people and police officers and did millions of dollars in damages. The same riots where our media stood in front of a burning building and said it was mostly peaceful. And the same riots that governed official, including the current VP, actually cheered and applauded, and told us they weren't going to and shouldn't stop. Why don't you bring those up?

Please, tell us why!

---

How big a misrepresentation, really, is saying January 6 was the worst day the capital has experienced? The only way to minimize January 6 is to focus on the riot itself and not the circumstances that led to it happening. We've had other riots in this country before, right comrades? The rad-libs riot every time a cop kills a black person! They can't have it both ways, amirite, we've seen this before!!1

Really? We've had that before?

We've had riots incited by an outgoing and self-absorbed President, who for months had maintained he may not accept the results of the election and who was ultimately refusing to do exactly that, all because he was too little of a man to admit he got beat?

Riots where the outgoing President was literally on the phone while the riot was happening, pressuring his Vice President to overturn the results of the American presidential election?

Strictly from a historical perspective, how does that compare to past Presidential conduct in our history? Have we ever seen anything remotely resembling a President threatening not to transfer power, and then encouraging rioters and lobbying the Vice President on his behalf?

What makes January 6 so egregious is that it wasn't outsiders encouraging the riots and overthrowing the election results. It wasn't a foreign army in 1814. It was our own sitting President.

How people want to continue minimizing the literal and symbolic importance of that key distinction is beyond me.

---

I would argue that your historical perspective seems to be skewed...

Republican congressmen being shot by a worker for a democrat political candidate

FBI agents who supported the democrats spying on a political candidate of the minority party

FBI agents who supported the democrats using made up political dirt to get a FISA warrant to spy on a president of the opposition party

Highest elected members of the democrat party saying that the president is not legitimate for years after his election, going so far as to say that he colluded with a foreign power to cheat in the election and refusing to work with him on that basis

Washington DC being set on fire by democrats due to riots during the inauguration of Trump, complete with speakers at the political rally saying that they want to blow up the White House.

Democrat members of Congress telling people that they should go after members of the administration

The President of the United States having to be moved to a bunker under the White House while democrat protestors assaulted secret service members and tried to tear down a fence protecting the white house.

Republicans who were leaving the White House being assaulted by Democrats after Trump accepting the nomination to run for President again.

Democrat members of Congress (and a future VP) paying bail funds for people who were trying to burn down cities and federal court houses.

I can keep going if you would like...

---

There's no need for you to go on.

You already proved my point by continuing to compare the actions of the single most powerful politician in the world to random Americans or much less powerful politicians that demonstrably didn't cause insurrections.

We've never had anything remotely resembling a President threatening to not transfer power or lobbying his VP to overturn the election.

---

Here’s @MarshaBlackburn asking KBJ if she can define the word woman. KBJ says she can’t. This is how broken the “party of science” is. They are so obsessed with transgenderism that they can’t even say what a woman is. pic.twitter.com/zdj2OkqppI

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) March 23, 2022

Ted Cruz pulls out his white board to illustrate how in child pornography cases, Ketanji Brown Jackson gave the defendants an average 47.2% less sentence than what the prosecutors recommended. pic.twitter.com/7VUnbdAg2E

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) March 22, 2022