Omar had her husband fired

[Tx Redneck]

https://pjmedia.com/davidsteinberg/ilhan-omars-husband-no-longer-works-for-minneapolis-councilwoman-sources-say-omar-asked-for-him-to-be-fired/

Ilhan Omar’s Husband No Longer Works for Minneapolis Councilwoman. Sources Say Omar Asked for Him to Be Fired.

There's too much cluster fornication in the article to copy/pasta, see for yourself.

[line-em-up]

How do these people habitually break the law and still be allowed to go free? When do we start going vigilante on the omars and clintons of the world?

[AnthonyS]

How do these people habitually break the law and still be allowed to go free? When do we start going vigilante on the omars and clintons of the world?

Democrat, woman, PoC, and Muslim....... it's total bullshit too. Imagine if a while male Christian freshman representative had done even one of these things.

And the answer to your question is when Beto's view of the 2nd amendment becomes the law of the land. Honestly, I'm sick of hearing about "hunting." That word is not in there. "Right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" is there though. Shall not be infringed.... WTF does that mean to these retards?

[BP]

Democrat, woman, PoC, and Muslim....... it's total bullshit too. Imagine if a while male Christian freshman representative had done even one of these things.

And the answer to your question is when Beto's view of the 2nd amendment becomes the law of the land. Honestly, I'm sick of hearing about "hunting." That word is not in there. "Right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" is there though. Shall not be infringed.... WTF does that mean to these retards?

But then libs will say the second half says well regulated militia, insinuating the amendment only applies for that purpose. I make the argument that the intent was to let civilians be armed well enough to defend against a tyrannical government. If they are remotely educated they'll bring up state guard units and I'll explain that the Texas State Guard is well regulated but they are not armed, it's not a combat force. If they bring up the national guard then I'll explain that they can be called into federal service.

It ends up with me explaining that until I can legally own the exact same weapons of war that the USAF and Army can use my rights are being infringed upon. Even if I have to join a non federally controlled militia to do so.

[bird_dog0347]

But then libs will say the second half says well regulated militia, insinuating the amendment only applies for that purpose. I make the argument that the intent was to let civilians be armed well enough to defend against a tyrannical government. If they are remotely educated they'll bring up state guard units and I'll explain that the Texas State Guard is well regulated but they are not armed, it's not a combat force. If they bring up the national guard then I'll explain that they can be called into federal service.

It ends up with me explaining that until I can legally own the exact same weapons of war that the USAF and Army can use my rights are being infringed upon. Even if I have to join a non federally controlled militia to do so.

Ahhh yes, the old "logic" argument... Just because you're not wrong doesn't mean the people you would argue that point with are capable of understanding it. I'd say 99.99999% of the time you're wasting your breath. They base their decisions on fear and emotions, logic extremely rarely trumps that.

[ceyko]

They base their decisions on fear and emotions, logic extremely rarely trumps that.

Yup, important to recognize that so you know to withdraw from the conversation.

[AnthonyS]

Yup, important to recognize that so you know to withdraw from the conversation.

You always gotta call them on their bullshit though. The 2nd amendment exists so the citizens can protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Liberals should love this, but their emotion has blinded them to logic.

[Tx Redneck]

Yup, important to recognize that so you know to withdraw from the conversation.

You always gotta call them on their bullshit though. The 2nd amendment exists so the citizens can protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Liberals should love this, but their emotion has blinded them to logic.

Essentially what yall are saying is, you can't argue with one's feelings, and that's what the "left" counts on, hence the proliferation of the LGBTQ bullshit.

[bird_dog0347]

I'm just tired of trying to convince people that are acting like a drunk 2 year old who doesn't want to blow their nose.

[ceyko]

Essentially what yall are saying is, you can't argue with one's feelings, and that's what the "left" counts on, hence the proliferation of the LGBTQ bullshit.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing or not - but essentially that's the truth. An example is I have a family member that's a smart cookie - but went hardcore liberal/anti-gun....

...over the years I TURNED pro-gun after my time in the Army. Any time I went to argue a pro-gun person the statistics/facts proved them right and me wrong.

So for this person, I took 6 solid hours proving everything via fbi.gov, cdc.gov - correlating that with anti-gun sites (their stats are not that far off and actually prove the pro-gun thing when put in context usually)...etc...etc.

The response back was "We will have to agree to disagree" or something similar. Other discussions more/less result in 100% ignore facts and siding with their emotions.

So ya, now a days if someone cannot use logic at all in regards to 2A/guns....I just stop talking and walk away. You cannot change their minds or have them see the reality of things.

[Tx Redneck]

I'm not sure if you're agreeing or not - but essentially that's the truth. An example is I have a family member that's a smart cookie - but went hardcore liberal/anti-gun....

...over the years I TURNED pro-gun after my time in the Army. Any time I went to argue a pro-gun person the statistics/facts proved them right and me wrong.

So for this person, I took 6 solid hours proving everything via fbi.gov, cdc.gov - correlating that with anti-gun sites (their stats are not that far off and actually prove the pro-gun thing when put in context usually)...etc...etc.

The response back was "We will have to agree to disagree" or something similar. Other discussions more/less result in 100% ignore facts and siding with their emotions.

So ya, now a days if someone cannot use logic at all in regards to 2A/guns....I just stop talking and walk away. You cannot change their minds or have them see the reality of things.

We're on the same page, when one's emotions are stated as basis for believing something, regardless of the data, you can't argue the facts anymore. I've heard it put this way, "Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still."