(inflammatory comment hidden) Please try again, and try considering the possibility that you are mistaken. Thanks!

And you've earned a time-out.

I certainly can see your point of view Matt, but I'm more concerned both are pushing powder in the keg of violence and lighting the fuse. frankly not all who lean left want violence, I certainly don't. I may not agree with Charlie Kirk, but I'm not petty enough to wish him dead, nor choose to dance on his grave. But that's my path to walk, I would rather leave safety to those willing to fight for me, and hope those who defend my way of living get benefits they need from it. I also refuse to follow those who go to the extremist levels of wanting some civil war, regardless of sides.

Well said.

Thank you, America is a country that was meant for all, and until we can find a way to clone the earth and universe so that both sides can live in their own planet in a micro universe dimension, I believe it should be that way.

Frankly we only got one planet earth and we are not immortal, so every push for war is really just people wasting time and breath over the dirt they will be buried under.

Not to dampen your honor in serving if major is your rank, just saying in general with how our world leaders act. People who serve their country should be respected even those who lose wars because they believed in their country to do the right thing, even if their country was in the wrong.

I agree. A civil war is the LAST thing we need right now. Cooler heads REALLY need to prevail here.

Problem with that is there are some, on both sides who want a civil war, I am not extremist MAGA, but I am also not extremists liberal either, I am more the middle ground trying to figure out why we have extremists running the system to the point the pendulum doesn't just swing, it's taking out people in the process.

Never forget that fact because then it comes to a point extremists inside soon turn on their own, and with how quickly the side that demanded civil war soon went silent when they realized that fact makes me believe extremists will turn on each other more, while pushing for their enemies to take the blame, and I for one would rather be cautious of both sides if that's the narrative they are going for just to push an agenda.

It would mean that those that think like you and act like you are willing to sacrifice you to get their way, I would rather discuss with an opposing minded person to meet in the middle, then be buddy buddy with those who match me down 100%, cause with the latter, they could turn against you if you don't fit their narrative with a snap of their fingers.

As I've probably mentioned in other comments in other journals, anyone who has actually studied history(instead of the watered down, sanitized, and entirely too PC version of it taught in school and blasted in the media) knows what happens in a two-way, ballistics grade political debate.

I think that the saner part of the population, and yes, that includes people on both conservative and liberal ends of the political spectrum, doesn't want this. However, we have extremist loonies running the asylum and news media who is completely out of control with clickbait titles spouting hateful rhetoric that the loony-toon fringe 'engages' with despite articles that refute themselves if you actually read them, lie by omission, or outright fabricate things.

And, unlike a certain person who was presumably blocked here, I can absolutely tell the lion's share of the venomous, vile rhetoric has come from those who are pretty far left. I've seen plenty of conservatives mock Biden and make jokes about him, but I don't recall them posting about how they wish he'd die so they could piss on his grave or how they consider anyone who voted for them as subhuman and want them to suffer. No, I've seen those things getting posted about Trump on a near-constant basis for nearly a damn decade now. I see people on the far left holding 'protests' that are cover for violent and destructive riots, using people who are probably more reasonably left-leaning as shields from the police. I see an ex of mine, who was unhinged enough to cyberstalk me for years after a breakup because she fell into a far-left Twitter echo chamber and regarded my generally centrist/libertarian views as 'far-right.'

I in no way promote and encourage violence; however I know that people who are conservative or even center-right are pretty sick of what's going on as well as years of constant barrage of vitriolic ad hominem attacks that have come from people who have been thoroughly conditioned by mainstream media to almost cult-like levels. I fear that this is going to escalate until the media(especially social media) either comes to its senses or is reined in.

👍

👍👍👍👍👍

I sincerely hope you do not genuinely believe this.

That's a take, for sure, but it's very much a bad one.

Bluntly put, his stance was that the ability for people to defend themselves against violent criminals and tyrannical governments was important enough to not disarm the vast majority of law-abiding, peaceful people over unfortunate but rare acts of violence like what he was claimed by.

Sounded to me like his last words were protesting the use of violence as a means to solve societal ills, not condoning it. It also sounds to me that as tragic and senseless as this act was, it will likely be the catalyst that turns the angry, far-left position in this nation's politics back into the unacceptable fringe that it needs to return to. Moderates, centrists, and even some liberals are frankly getting sick of it.

Hmmm. Another timeout is called for, I think.

https://www.furaffinity.net/journal/11216288/

Considering Stephen King made a public apology over the whole stoning comment being taken way out of context(https://www.usatoday.com/story/ente.....k/86123212007/), I think it's a fair assumption that those other comments are on shaky ground. Thanks for proving my point.

I will reiterate that I don't really agree with a fair bit of what of what Kirk stood for(especially as I'm not an adherent of any Abrahamic religion); at the same time I think this is a very good object lesson in how complicit the media is for perpetuating sound bytes taken out of context, lying by omission, and in some cases outright fabrication. There is a pretty good argument to be made for stochastic terrorism.

At the very least I think there's a very, very good argument for reinstating the dissemination ban portion of the Smith-Mundt act. I'm not asking for anyone to shed tears for the man; at the same time I think this is the catalyst for a very serious discussion as to the media's role in the division and radicalization that's happening on both sides.