since9
Campaign Veteran
Ok, let's get this straight: The cop is a he, an obtuse liberal. The hard head is a she and an over-the-top conservative. They're friends, and have been for a long time (decades). Zero romantic interest, just close friends. I happened on their scene about six years ago and tried playing peacemaker for a few months before I realized each one was trying to play me and my opinions against the other. I've been through enough Karpman Drama Triangle in my life thank you very much and bowed out for nearly three years. But, both are really interesting and engaging people, and our paths crossed again, so...
Well, four days ago we were all sitting around when my hard head conservative friend proclaimed she was going to start pre-emptively popping Muslims in response to some Muslim Imam's declaration that "Muslims have the right to take the property of filthy Christians and Jews". My obtuse liberal cop responded by saying he was going to be her arresting officer and would she like to enter a pre-emptive plea (? Never heard of that, but it made sense in light of her comments), because unless the guy committed a crime, she couldn't do squat.
I'm a conservative, but I'm siding with my liberal cop friend, at least on this particular point. Here was my response to the conversation:
Both of them stared at me like I was some kind of Martian, blinked a few times, as if I'd invaded their personal space consisting solely of their less than witty repartee' and never-ending avoidance of a happy medium, and things just sort of deflated from there.
At that point, I realized these two cats had discovered a line of tension which they enjoyed surfing tangent to but technically off the Karpman Drama Triangle.
Well, Gee Whiz can I Pees It, I'm reasonably well-educated at multiple levels in the wide (and deep) levels of humanities, but I honestly did not see what might be coming from a "couple" who'd been bantering back and forth on the same issue for some 20 years.
Sounds a lot like Congress.
That observed, I ask you, what can we learn here about what's going on in our local, county, state, and federal election systems, why we elect the people we do, and why might we ought to start electing people who can actually get the job done instead of electing either who we (erroneously) think can get the job done, or worse, being suckered into a wrong vote by Demoncraps or not voting at all?
Well, four days ago we were all sitting around when my hard head conservative friend proclaimed she was going to start pre-emptively popping Muslims in response to some Muslim Imam's declaration that "Muslims have the right to take the property of filthy Christians and Jews". My obtuse liberal cop responded by saying he was going to be her arresting officer and would she like to enter a pre-emptive plea (? Never heard of that, but it made sense in light of her comments), because unless the guy committed a crime, she couldn't do squat.
I'm a conservative, but I'm siding with my liberal cop friend, at least on this particular point. Here was my response to the conversation:
We can't just shoot them because of his beliefs. If that were the case, we'd be breaking the law, same as him. The only reason I would shoot him is in defense of either self or property, commensurate with our local, county, state, and federal law.
We are, after all a Republic - i.e. a government of law. Says so not only in our Constitution, but also in each and every State Constitution. That's not to say, "If we follow the law everything will be just fine and dandy," as the law is not perfect. We're often called up to use good reason and sound judgement. On two occasions, two while flying and one while on the ground, I've had to weigh what the imperfect law said and what reality demanded, and reality won. All three times I was exonerated.
But I default to the law.
When I say, "two to the heart and one to the head," that's only IF he attempts to deprive me of life, limb, or property, and he's not of sane enough mind to respect the business end of my 9mm backed by my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for precisely that purpose.
We are, after all a Republic - i.e. a government of law. Says so not only in our Constitution, but also in each and every State Constitution. That's not to say, "If we follow the law everything will be just fine and dandy," as the law is not perfect. We're often called up to use good reason and sound judgement. On two occasions, two while flying and one while on the ground, I've had to weigh what the imperfect law said and what reality demanded, and reality won. All three times I was exonerated.
But I default to the law.
When I say, "two to the heart and one to the head," that's only IF he attempts to deprive me of life, limb, or property, and he's not of sane enough mind to respect the business end of my 9mm backed by my Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for precisely that purpose.
Both of them stared at me like I was some kind of Martian, blinked a few times, as if I'd invaded their personal space consisting solely of their less than witty repartee' and never-ending avoidance of a happy medium, and things just sort of deflated from there.
At that point, I realized these two cats had discovered a line of tension which they enjoyed surfing tangent to but technically off the Karpman Drama Triangle.
Well, Gee Whiz can I Pees It, I'm reasonably well-educated at multiple levels in the wide (and deep) levels of humanities, but I honestly did not see what might be coming from a "couple" who'd been bantering back and forth on the same issue for some 20 years.
Sounds a lot like Congress.
That observed, I ask you, what can we learn here about what's going on in our local, county, state, and federal election systems, why we elect the people we do, and why might we ought to start electing people who can actually get the job done instead of electing either who we (erroneously) think can get the job done, or worse, being suckered into a wrong vote by Demoncraps or not voting at all?
Last edited:
