More sweet intelligence-based insults. You’ve got a career in this.
But I’m not calling for assassination or violence at all. I merely pointed out that violence and revolution are literally the means whereby this country exist came into existence - because some brave men were willing to do whatever they thought was necessary, risking everything. Don’t forget that.
And also this - your faith in the military seems a little misplaced to me. I’d think they’re just as likely to fire on us as they would be to uphold the law and ensure a fair election result. The upper echelons of the military are suspect at best.
But I absolutely agree that a win through the courts would be infinitely preferable. Let’s hope that’s the way it goes.
Well, if you say things that can be construed as ignorant & then refuse reason, what else is one to assume?
Facts don't care about your feelings...
"The startling results are depicted in the attached Figure. As you can see, nonviolent campaigns have a 53% success rate and only about a 20% rate of complete failure. Things are reversed for violent campaigns, which were only successful 23% of the time, and complete failures about 60% of the time. Violent campaigns succeeded partially in about 10% of cases, again comparing unfavorably to nonviolent campaigns, which resulted in partial successes over 20% of the time."
Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. You're playing right into their hands - its been their playbook for the last century...
PS
I must have missed where the founding fathers assassinated the king before dumping tea in the harbor & writing petitions to the king during my studies of history...
You use a lot of big words and like to act like you’re possessed of superior intelligence, but it doesn’t appear like your reading comprehension is top-notch. Either you can’t see my point or you’re purposely missing it, but we’re both wasting time arguing over this. This will be my final reply, whether you choose to respond or not.
P.S. The founding fathers never assassinated the king, but when petitions and entreaties failed them, they finally chose to revolt against the much more local British authorities. They realized that for them at that time, it was the best option they had left.
Shall I speak like a simpleton to make you feel better about yourself?
Wtf kind of crap is that 'muh you use big words & that's mean!'...
I write how i write, get over it or get bent.
Waste of time.
PS: I just reread my post - was it the word 'construed' that offended you? Idk what other word in what I wrote could have triggered you...
More sweet intelligence-based insults. You’ve got a career in this.
But I’m not calling for assassination or violence at all. I merely pointed out that violence and revolution are literally the means whereby this country exist came into existence - because some brave men were willing to do whatever they thought was necessary, risking everything. Don’t forget that.
And also this - your faith in the military seems a little misplaced to me. I’d think they’re just as likely to fire on us as they would be to uphold the law and ensure a fair election result. The upper echelons of the military are suspect at best.
But I absolutely agree that a win through the courts would be infinitely preferable. Let’s hope that’s the way it goes.
Well, if you say things that can be construed as ignorant & then refuse reason, what else is one to assume?
Facts don't care about your feelings... "The startling results are depicted in the attached Figure. As you can see, nonviolent campaigns have a 53% success rate and only about a 20% rate of complete failure. Things are reversed for violent campaigns, which were only successful 23% of the time, and complete failures about 60% of the time. Violent campaigns succeeded partially in about 10% of cases, again comparing unfavorably to nonviolent campaigns, which resulted in partial successes over 20% of the time."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sex-murder-and-the-meaning-life/201404/violent-versus-nonviolent-revolutions-which-way-wins
Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. You're playing right into their hands - its been their playbook for the last century...
PS I must have missed where the founding fathers assassinated the king before dumping tea in the harbor & writing petitions to the king during my studies of history...
You use a lot of big words and like to act like you’re possessed of superior intelligence, but it doesn’t appear like your reading comprehension is top-notch. Either you can’t see my point or you’re purposely missing it, but we’re both wasting time arguing over this. This will be my final reply, whether you choose to respond or not.
P.S. The founding fathers never assassinated the king, but when petitions and entreaties failed them, they finally chose to revolt against the much more local British authorities. They realized that for them at that time, it was the best option they had left.
Shall I speak like a simpleton to make you feel better about yourself? Wtf kind of crap is that 'muh you use big words & that's mean!'... I write how i write, get over it or get bent. Waste of time.
PS: I just reread my post - was it the word 'construed' that offended you? Idk what other word in what I wrote could have triggered you...