It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => General Board => Topic started by: trapeze on September 20, 2013, 10:57:05 PM
-
Two incidents that broke today:
KU Professor ‘Wishes Death on Children of NRA Members’, Calls It ‘God’s Justice’ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/ku-professor-wishes-death-on-children-of-nra-members-calls-it-gods-justice/)
David Guth, a professor at the University of Kansas’ journalism department, Tweeted out a sick message to the world after Monday’s Navy Yard shooting. He hopes that the children of NRA members are killed by the next crazed mass murderer. And he calls it “God’s justice” on “misguided miscreants”. Equally appalling is that the University stands behind its sick professor who wishes death on children.
#NavyYardShooting The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.
— David Guth (@DWGuth) September 16, 2013
KU put him on admin leave (paid vacation until the heat is off) later in the day.
Then there is this: (http://minx.cc/?post=343549)
California Democrat Communications Director Wishes Deadly, Incurable Illness on Amanda Carpenter's Children; State Party Condemns, But Only Because Such Rhetoric "Lets Ted Cruz Off The Hook"
@amandacarpenter May your children all die from debilitating, painful and incurable diseases.
Amanda Carpenter is a staffer for Ted Cruz.
Obviously, this is beyond the pale.
This is what we, as conservatives, are facing. Just in case there is anyone among us who doubts what their intentions are.
Some (on the left) may not think this way just as there are probably some muslims who do not wish fervently for the death of all infidels. But I think that a sizable percentage of the left really do wish us all (and our children) to die horrible deaths. They just wish that we were gone. Horribly. So that they can live peacefully in the sick little utopian world that exists in the fever swamps of their twisted minds.
These two creatures are only the most vocal of the bunch. They dare to say what the larger group thinks and believes.
I don't like to believe this sort of thing about other human beings but history teaches us that this has happened before. The first thing you do is to de-humanize your enemy because if they aren't human then it's okay to destroy them. Then it just comes down to a matter of finding a way to dispose of them in an efficient manner.
It's been said that ovens work rather well for that sort of thing.
-
And meanwhile the media continues with the narrative that somehow it's conservatives who are guilty of inflammatory rhetoric, dragging down the discourse, using violent and suggestive language. You know, like Sarah Palin was responsible for Jared Loughner shooting Gabby Giffords because she used bullseye symbols on her PAC ads.
And Nancy Pelosi accusing Tea Party rallies of displaying swastikas and spitting on black Congressmen. That's the really infuriating part of all this. Not that the Left is full of poisonous hate -- we knew that -- but that the media reports things exactly the opposite.
-
Well, that's the thing about Twitter...not only can people bypass the media and report things themselves but the left is fully capable of portraying themselves as they really are.
-
Oh...and the douche from the Democrat party got sh*t canned. (http://www.sacdems.org/democratic-party-of-sacramento-county-calls-for-and-accepts-resignation-of-communications-chair/)
Not that it matters. They have hundreds...thousands more just like him to take his place. Brownshirts.
-
Problem is a common language separated by the gulf of politics. They condemn us when we call for the death of politicians. They get righteous when they wish for the death of politicans' kids and are upset when called upon it. There is also the difference of why we on the right think the totalitarian mandarins in our midst should die, as hatred of tyranny is in our uniquely American blood (or at least used to be). They don't think of themselves as totalitarians, so they cannot see that difference.
-
Logically, it won't be long until everybody is calling for somebody's death.
-
That California guy has never liked girls...if ya know what I mean. ::curtsy4::
-
Problem is a common language separated by the gulf of politics. They condemn us when we call for the death of politicians. They get righteous when they wish for the death of politicans' kids and are upset when called upon it. There is also the difference of why we on the right think the totalitarian mandarins in our midst should die, as hatred of tyranny is in our uniquely American blood (or at least used to be). They don't think of themselves as totalitarians, so they cannot see that difference.
This isn't a gulf of politics. They are Children and we are adults. They hate us with the passion a 5 year old uses when throwing a temper tantrum when someone tells them they can't have cake till after dinner. The Left really doesn't care about anything other than feeling superior to us, and calling for the death of are children makes them feel that way - self righteously better. It doesn't matter at all that the privately owned guns stopped crime and pain every day. In fact it matters more, because the lefty know they would never put themselves in harms way to help another - armed or not. They know that it makes the armed person willing to do so better than them, and they hate that with every fiber of their envious heart. We ARE better than them. We have personal responsibility. We don't constantly NEED help from others. We have the self control required to pursue delayed gratification, keep our genitals in our pants, and not steal when we have the chance. We have character and grace. That is why they hate us fundamentally. That is why they hate our Christian morals- because they set up standards they pathetic wretches couldn't even come close to. That is why they relish it when one of us falls from the path and see it as a victory, rather than a tragedy. These people are hateful, sick, loathsome, twisted little spoiled brats. I don't wish death to their kids. I wish death to them, and hopefully by their own hand. Starvation is one of the most painful ways to die, and I wish that everyone whom they have ever derided and attacked via their proxies in government, every one who has been stolen from and bullied by these barbarians, denies them aid when they need it, so maybe, just maybe before they go, they learn the value of treating others with respect and the difference between a voluntary action and coercion.
-
POST EDITED/PORTIONS DELETED FOR CONTENT; IDP
I think just how beautiful this country was before the Marxists took it over and it will again after the war for Liberty.
I'm sorry warpmine. My desire is to let people exercise personal responsibility re; lines and boundaries for what is acceptable or unacceptable in an open forum. I ask that of you now.
Blatant and graphic calls for violence harm the forum, and are not allowed. We're already gritty enough to chase away all but the most zealous conservative commenters. At a minimum, we must practice restraint when we speak of events to come.
-
I knew that a story like this was going to piss everyone off.
-
I predict Pubbies will continue to insist on fighting with both hands tied behind their back and that this crap will get worse.
Let me know what prize I've won...
-
I predict Pubbies will continue to insist on fighting with both hands tied behind their back and that this crap will get worse.
Let me know what prize I've won...
An all expenses paid (less medical) vacation to Chicago. How's that sound?
-
I think it all boils down to this:
there are 2 basic types of humans, aggressive self-determining types and passive self-doubters.
the self-determining types innovate, take opportunities and project civilizations forwards through many means. This can be economically, politically, intellectually or militarily. These are not necessarily benevolent cultures but run the gamut from America to the mongol horde.
the passive types were and are comfortable with cultures that enable equality and sharing, your basic hunter/gatherer small clan which is always the left's representative of the ideal world. They understand intrinsically that if they were to compete with the self-determining types they would not fare as well and the "wealth" would not be spread evenly.
deep down the leftist, progressive socialists are the pacifists and strive to create the small world of the clan-based hunter/gatherer societies in our much larger cultures and they meet unavoidable failure where ever they try. They understand that the world they need to create to ensure their fair share is a no-go in any group larger than a few hundred at the most.
the self-determining types are representative of the only successful cultures and the left just can't bring themselves to actualize the fact that they are on the perennial losing side of history and the human genome. this is the basis of their abject hatred because in the very qualities that make the right successful, they see their weakness and inherent inability to compete. they use the only tools left to the weak which are deceit and trickery, both ignoble traits to the aggressive self-confident types.
Those who chose utopian egalitarian communal societies just don't have the stones to claim what they need in life and would rather construct artifices that would guarantee their "fair share" without regard of their abilities.
-
I think it all boils down to this:
there are 2 basic types of humans, aggressive self-determining types and passive self-doubters.
the self-determining types innovate, take opportunities and project civilizations forwards through many means. This can be economically, politically, intellectually or militarily. These are not necessarily benevolent cultures but run the gamut from America to the mongol horde.
the passive types were and are comfortable with cultures that enable equality and sharing, your basic hunter/gatherer small clan which is always the left's representative of the ideal world. They understand intrinsically that if they were to compete with the self-determining types they would not fare as well and the "wealth" would not be spread evenly.
deep down the leftist, progressive socialists are the pacifists and strive to create the small world of the clan-based hunter/gatherer societies in our much larger cultures and they meet unavoidable failure where ever they try. They understand that the world they need to create to ensure their fair share is a no-go in any group larger than a few hundred at the most.
the self-determining types are representative of the only successful cultures and the left just can't bring themselves to actualize the fact that they are on the perennial losing side of history and the human genome. this is the basis of their abject hatred because in the very qualities that make the right successful, they see their weakness and inherent inability to compete. they use the only tools left to the weak which are deceit and trickery, both ignoble traits to the aggressive self-confident types.
Those who chose utopian egalitarian communal societies just don't have the stones to claim what they need in life and would rather construct artifices that would guarantee their "fair share" without regard of their abilities.
Yeah. What you said ^^^
-
Jesus Christ Almighty already, Weisshaupt!
What she said? ::bashing::
The Left are not self-doubters, they're not passive by any means, and they're not fearful. They believe they are the smartest people in the room and they're determined to prevail and impose their vision of good on us all.
Good. grief.
-
The Left are not self-doubters, they're not passive by any means, and they're not fearful. They believe they are the smartest people in the room and they're determined to prevail and impose their vision of good on us all.
Taken individually, I think that Mama's assessment may be an accurate generalization. Leftists derive the attributes you describe only when they have the power of the collective. In numbers and once in power, their collective inner child becomes a bully, then, mass graves.
-
I predict Pubbies will continue to insist on fighting with both hands tied behind their back and that this crap will get worse.
Let me know what prize I've won...
An all expenses paid (less medical) vacation to Chicago. How's that sound?
Feels like a foot in the berries for breakfast and a crap sandwich for lunch...don't want to know what fate dinner holds!
-
The Left are not self-doubters, they're not passive by any means, and they're not fearful. They believe they are the smartest people in the room and they're determined to prevail and impose their vision of good on us all.
Taken individually, I think that Mama's assessment may be an accurate generalization. Leftists derive the attributes you describe only when they have the power of the collective. In numbers and once in power, their collective inner child becomes a bully, then, mass graves.
I think a distinction can be made between the ruling agitators who are at/near the mass grave stage and the rank and file Free Shyt Army can't-see-past-the-end-of-their-nose mostly brain-dead streetwalking emoting libiot in the proto-bully stage.
-
The Left are not self-doubters, they're not passive by any means, and they're not fearful. They believe they are the smartest people in the room and they're determined to prevail and impose their vision of good on us all.
Taken individually, I think that Mama's assessment may be an accurate generalization. Leftists derive the attributes you describe only when they have the power of the collective. In numbers and once in power, their collective inner child becomes a bully, then, mass graves.
I think a distinction can be made between the ruling agitators who are at/near the mass grave stage and the rank and file Free Shyt Army can't-see-past-the-end-of-their-nose mostly brain-dead streetwalking emoting libiot in the proto-bully stage.
Sure but even that has to be split into two groups: Those that adhere to God's principles and those that actively deny God. A self doubter I am, can you blame me after this sh*t, but I can innovate for my business when called upon. If it weren't for the horrid environment brought upon us b y the government, I may have tried my hand at inventing things to improve my trade. Those that deny God are those most likely to take up the free shyt and gathering of the common core leftist.
I had ideas to improve or extend the range of electric cars however, I'm rather pissed the government's interference in the whole mess to begin with so screw it. Even had ideas for an non internal combustion engine but again, government stifles both ingenuity and creativity. The only thing I can actively concentrate on is finding ways to destroy the enemy of liberty.
-
The Left are not self-doubters, they're not passive by any means, and they're not fearful. They believe they are the smartest people in the room and they're determined to prevail and impose their vision of good on us all.
Taken individually, I think that Mama's assessment may be an accurate generalization. Leftists derive the attributes you describe only when they have the power of the collective. In numbers and once in power, their collective inner child becomes a bully, then, mass graves.
I think a distinction can be made between the ruling agitators who are at/near the mass grave stage and the rank and file Free Shyt Army can't-see-past-the-end-of-their-nose mostly brain-dead streetwalking emoting libiot in the proto-bully stage.
See, I think that when those ruling agitators gain real power - as they have now - the free-sh*t army is just as dangerous - just as prone to the things Pan warns of. It is the collective Left that poses a threat, in all its facets.
-
See, I think that when those ruling agitators gain real power - as they have now - the free-sh*t army is just as dangerous - just as prone to the things Pan warns of. It is the collective Left that poses a threat, in all its facets.
Every Army still needs to eat. I don't think the Fed will be able to provide, expect by offering the benefit of pillage. Even then, most of the Free-Shyt army (outside of the ghetto) desperately needs to believe they are "good people" - they are all feelings and ego. They will vote to use the government as a weapon, because it puts a degree of separation between them and the act of violence. Put the weapon in their hands, and most of that army will sit down and do nothing. Yes, that still leaves a sizable portiuon of the Army to deal with, but most of these middle and upper class feel good, dinner party leftists, will just shut down and "stop caring about politics" They will be in full denial mode. They will hear no evil, see no evil, and probably do no evil, other than ignoring the evil around them. I don't see the Fed having the resources to feed them, so their hunger may force them into the ranks, but I don't think intellectually or emotionally will they be able to do the job. They will shirk as much as possible.
the 20-30% that find us truly evil... they may want to do the job, but they are so damn stupid I doubt they can do it right, and will instead concentrating on raping and robbing rather than in actually engaging resistance.
-
Jesus Christ Almighty already, Weisshaupt!
What she said? ::bashing::
The Left are not self-doubters, they're not passive by any means, and they're not fearful. They believe they are the smartest people in the room and they're determined to prevail and impose their vision of good on us all.
Good. grief.
Right up until they have to take the gun into their own hands to do it. IDP is right, they only work via the collective - Society MUST BE responsible for what they do.
Yes there are leftists who will gladly take up arms against us for the power and ego rush.. but there are many who would not. Who have been so conditioned that war is not the answer, that guns are evil, and who so firmly believe they are the light and the good in the world, that they can't do it personally. But the work of the collective must ultimately be done by individuals. Wishing doesn't make it so. Most of the left is in denial. They can't and won't accept that " world they need to create to ensure their fair share is a no-go in any group larger than a few hundred at the most. " They want, desperately, to believe they live in a voluntary culture, where the majority are willingly part of their tribe, and its just a few (evil) malcontents who need to be forced. Its a myth they have to believe.
They deny any large group takes advantage. They think everyone works ( or wants to work) as hard as the next guy.
They must believe are the majority. That they are good and that everyone accepts and wants their way of living.
I have said it before, they can't even conceive that we are willing to die rather than be a part of their crap. My mother recently sent me another email saying she "didn't understand" how I could let this affect "family" - as if she had nothing to do with the new gun laws or Obamacare, or any other of the daily attacks on my faith, freedom and beliefs. She supports both Obamacare and the Gun laws. She voted for sending a person with a gun into my home to enforce these edicts, cheered as her bullies got that law passed, and "doesn't see" why this should affect our relationship. Its the collective doing it, not "her". They desperately need to pretend it isn't them. They feel the collective decision justifies the violence. No raindrop feels responsible for the flood. "Gemeinnutz geht vor eigennutz" justifies everything. How could I reject the comfort of belonging to the collective? The Security of the Herd? They don't, at a very fundamental level, understand why we reject their noble "kindness" - but suggest to them that if they feel so strongly they should come into your house and do it themselves, and they will recoil from the idea. Its never their personal responsibility, and can't be unless they have the Badge- the saction of the collective that makes them the enforcer. And when you point out the government has as much right to come into your house and tell you to buy health care, as they do, lacking the consent or power to pass such an edict, that concept too is beyond them. There is no room in their minds for personal responsibility- the collective must rule all. It can't be limited. Everything they do is done to protect thier fantasy world and fantasy idea of themselves.
A Lefty will of course take up a gun to steal food for themselves, to rape and to pillage to boost their own egos, but they have no loyalty to the collective. Its a tool to make them feel good. Its a method of removing themselves from the base violence of their actions. They won't die for the collective. They will only die for their own egos. That is why Hitler called them a "master race" - he fed the thug's egos, telling them they were good because they were going to bring about Utopia. None of them cared about Utopia. They cared they were "good" These entitled bankrupt thugs won't, by and large, put their lives on the line to force this down your throat, because there is nothing that is greater to them than their own lives. If it isn't helping them personally, they won't do it. Be it charity. Or violence.
-
I believe that those on the left side of the argument that are the "leaders" such as Pelosi, reid, Sharpton et al are not members of the passive group I delineated but are, in fact, opportunistic aggressive types who see an opportunity to gain power by utilizing the ideology and "group speech" of the lefties in order to utilize their group strength. they only lack the cultural sense of group honor and shame which is typical of the left where the ends always justify the means.
I will never believe that Pelosi, Obama, feinstien etc actually believe the passive crap they speak. did you ever see feinstien spreading her wealth? but the majority of the passive left desperately want leaders who will give them that utopian world they want but do not have the stones to get for themselves and easily accept these types of leaders without much inspection as they prove the means to an end that is acceptable to them.
as for displays of "force" such as sit-in demonstrations, vandalism and even acts of violence, they are done in individualistic personal acts that do not reflect the "warrior ethos" of the aggressive types and do not represent group power and altruistic sacrifice for the common good but are asymmetrical acts done in spontaneous emotional outbreaks.
It's not that the left can't display anger, frustration and violence, it is the manner in which they do this and the lack of a value system created to curtail and proscribe its use. You don't usually see the aggressive types engaging in many mass demonstrations run amuck but that is usually the end result of leftist demonstrations where there is chaos and atrocities with regularity because their tendency to violence is individual and petulant.
-
The Left are not self-doubters, they're not passive by any means, and they're not fearful. They believe they are the smartest people in the room and they're determined to prevail and impose their vision of good on us all.
Taken individually, I think that Mama's assessment may be an accurate generalization. Leftists derive the attributes you describe only when they have the power of the collective. In numbers and once in power, their collective inner child becomes a bully, then, mass graves.
I think a distinction can be made between the ruling agitators who are at/near the mass grave stage and the rank and file Free Shyt Army can't-see-past-the-end-of-their-nose mostly brain-dead streetwalking emoting libiot in the proto-bully stage.
See, I think that when those ruling agitators gain real power - as they have now - the free-sh*t army is just as dangerous - just as prone to the things Pan warns of. It is the collective Left that poses a threat, in all its facets.
I agree, IMO it is not a far walk for a libiot to make from common leftbot to full-blown agitator. But the desire to commit more mischief increases exponentially to the amount of power an agitator is allowed to exercise...we've all seen the error in giving leftists ANY power, from local neighborhood busybody to POTUS...giving a lefty ANY power is a mistake and should be avoided at all costs...and letting them take more than they are entitled to exercise (a common Pubbie sin) is unforgivable.
-
I have become a fan of "the five" and have watched the demeanor of bob Bechtel evolve over this past year. He was a confident espouser of liberal babel at the beginning full of the hubris he was channeling from his leader. as the year continued and his leader has become the powerless laughing stock of much of the real world Bechtel has devolved into a mean spirited, spoiled brat, unable to defend his leader and relegated to spouting old leftist diatribes and pouting a lot.
this is what is happening to the left, their leaders have ventured out past what the tribe can support and they are unwilling or unable to follow in a direction that would require them to stand up and defend their ideology. much like the OWS crowd that faded when the weather and the going got tough.
We should learn from this and realize that the left is really only as strong as their leadership can inspire them to be. what they really want is to sit passively and spread the wealth in a "peace at any cost" environment as long as they get their next meal. Obama could not inspire them to rally behind him to bomb Syria for gassing it's people, they wanted to stay safe at home. there was no commitment to their values, just lip service. their passions are skin deep and for demonstration purposes only, they are not willing to sacrifice for the cause. (there have been rare exceptions to this but they are anomalies )
like Obama care, the right should utilize this inherent weakness and enable the bills actualization and force the left to partake of it without any exemptions and see just how deep their commitment is to equal treatment under the law. you will see obamacare disappear in swift time.
-
I think one group has been passed over in this discussion of the different types of people that fall under the Left's umbrella, and that's the apolitical thug/criminal element. What a lot of you have said about the more effete intellectual Left is true, but that's also why actual Leftist revolutions have made use of basically mercenary armies. Empty the prisons and dangle an offer of plunder and rape without consequence, just do your plundering and raping against the targets we give you.
It's also why Leftist revolutions, upon consolidating power, as their first order of business dispatch a substantial portion of their own "true believers". Some of them are such true believers that it's said many people in the Soviet gulags openly wept when they heard that Stalin had died, totally oblivious to the fact that it was Stalin who put them there. Yuri Bezmenov gave a fascinating interview in the early 80s where he talked about the process of destabilization, demoralization, takeover, and consolidation and how the ruthless element of the Left invariably must eliminate the less-ruthless element of the Left.
So don't take any sort of consolation from the fact that your rank and file liberal probably lacks the courage of his convictions, because there are elements in society who will happily do the dirty work without any consideration of ideology but because they simply enjoy it for its own sake.
-
glock, are you inferring that harry reid is a mercenary thug?
I agree with your thesis, but these thugs only stay "loyal" as long as they are "paid" and our government is running out of cash. even the unions are deserting them (ie obamacare).
we will see how loyal Lois Lerner remains when she needs to pay for her own legal defense, she will turn states witness to save her own bank account.
to paraphrase Margaret thatcher, the left is finally running out of everyone else's money. I am just curious as to how the welfare masses will react when there is nothing for them to gain from the left, will they come out at riot when there is no bama phone to recompense them?
-
G makes a good point, shock troops can come from many quarters...what history shows is retaining control over those quarters (up to and including killing them off once no longer necessary) can be dicey. Just like playing a massive shell game with the economy the left foolishly thinks they can control all the forces they unleash...they are mistaken and much blood will prove it once again. When the crap really hits the fan all bets are off.
-
Well, I am talking about the Left's behavior outside of any established political process, i.e. when they are openly executing a coup. In the Bolshevik period in Russia, 1917-1922, they used common criminals, foreign brigands (most notoriously the Chinese) to do a lot of their dirty work. And even the outwardly bookish, intellectual Lefties can surprise you. I believe they are tapping into demonic influences when they whip up these orgies of murder and torture. Lenin said it is far better that 10,000 innocents die than for a single "class enemy" to survive.
-
you are absolutely correct about the lefts use of thugs etc, but the thugs aren't usually the ones voting. It is the lame-a$$ intellectuals and weeping tree-huggers who religiously make it to the polls. these are the ones who baked cookies for Dennis Kucinich. I am just glad to see that the unions are realizing that the left has very little left to offer them in exchange for their "support"
my other big concern is the entrenched lefties in our bureaucracy and educational system. they can do as much damage by manipulating our government agencies and the minds of our children as any group of thugs. it doesn't take much fortitude to mis-educate children from the comfort of a unionized well-paying job. and let's not even go into what the irs is capable of. (speaking of hired thugs did you watch the "security guard" man-handle a parent at a school board meeting about common core. a veritable example of your thug for hire thesis.)
-
I agree, IMO it is not a far walk for a libiot to make from common leftbot to full-blown agitator.
I think its pretty obvious that we are dealing with different populations and kinds of leftists .. we have discussed this before using several different analogies: The Sheepdog, Wolves and Sheep, Dawkin's evolutinary model of Grudgers, Cheaters and Suckers, and Evan Sayet's explanation via Howard Zinn:
“Objectivity is impossible, and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable.”-Howard Zinn
The First order liberal- the sheep, or the sucker, is of the first class, that simply believes objectivity to be impossible. They therefore do not think about anything. They feel. They are therefore easily led, swayed and manipulated by he second order Lefty - the Cheater, the wolf -- who knows objectivity is possible, that there is an objective truth, but cynically rejects it in favor of power - to advance a personal goal ( or vendetta) Zinn is obviously himself a second order lefty- totally aware that objectivity is possible but rejecting it because
"objectivity is not desirable because if we want to have an effect on the world, we need to emphasize those things which will make students more active citizens and more moral people." (http://zinnedproject.org/why/why-students-should-study-history/)
Translation: Its okay to lie to people (suckers, sheep) if doing so gets them to behave in the way you want them to behave. All very narcissistic and nihilist - the ends justify the means no matter what, because you think your greater goals trump the facts, as well as other individuals right to know the truth and decide for themselves.
Not all leftists are this way. The Cheaters, Grudgers, self appointed Nietzschean Übermensch are all perfectly willing to kill us if they need to, and willing to try to manipulate the Sheep, cheater, useful idiot, non-thinking moron into doing so as well, but the sheep MUST FEEL that are doing good when they do it. They have to feel justified in shoving you into the oven. I am not saying it can't be done, but the sheep are by nature pacifist herd animals. They are far happier not being involved, and they will let the Wolves do their dirty work if at all possible. If they do it, it has to benefit THEM in an obvious, easy to understand way ( They eat today if they do it, and don't if they refuse)
One could argue the Wolves come in two classes : the successful, like Harry Ried and Pelosi, and the unsuccessful - who end up becoming thuggish security guards at school board meetings. But they are thieves all and loyalty is dependant upon what they can get out of it. None of them are in it "for the cause" that the Sheep think they are supporting. And soon as the pay stops, so do they.
-
you are absolutely correct about the lefts use of thugs etc, but the thugs aren't usually the ones voting. It is the lame-a$$ intellectuals and weeping tree-huggers who religiously make it to the polls.
That may have been true at one time, but it seems to me that this has changed since Obama. He has tapped into the free-sh*t army, and with the aid of true-believer minions, he has mobilized them.
That has been the conservative's mistake. We have always assumed we were the "silent majority". Obama has awakened the true silent majority - losers who never bothered to vote - and the Leftists are in the process of growing that majority faster than any of us dared think possible.
-
And consider that he is also mobilizing people who do not exist. Dead people, phantom people invented out of thin air, or electoral doppelgangers (i.e. people voting multiple times).
They have no scruples. Their only animating motive is to impose their will, and they will do so by whatever means they can. That "our side" is nominally represented by people who either cannot or will not understand this simple fact is in a way more dangerous than the Left itself. We're trying to yell "Fire!" and they're busy soothing the masses saying "Oh don't be silly, that's not smoke, it's just condensation from the air conditioner", "That smell is nothing, somebody just burned a piece of toast".
What is it they say about domesticated horses and other barn animals? They'll just stay in a burning barn and burn to death because they don't know "how" to survive anymore?
The GOP is no longer just an ineffective vehicle, it is actively opposing efforts to restore a constitutional, representative republic, because its leadership has cynically calculated that it will benefit more from a power sharing arrangement with the Democrats (in the decidedly junior role).
-
well, guys you are a real downer for the day, but no matter, I think it is time to find our Epimonandas and march our Thebans straight into Sparta.
Only straightforward assault on the system of the left will dismantle them, they are as wily as the Iranians "talking" to Obama and as deceitful as Assad in a tv interview.
My contention still holds true, there are 2 types of humans, aggressive proactive types who get things done and passive "sheep who follow"
you can find aggressive types passing as leftists, they are aggressive and they do get things done, but you find very few passive "sheep who follow" hiding out amid the right. It is very difficult for sheep to profess a "warrior code" demeanor.
-
The selfish group is always going to be bigger. People didn't become less self-interested with Reagan. he didn't usher in a new era of conservatism that people forgot over the next several elections. he tapped into that self-interest by appealing to it via conservative ideas. You can have more and be more if you follow these ideas. Those people were never true believers in conservative thought. Reagan just got them to think they'd get what they want if they followed him. I think a lot of them thought that his way was the way to go because it meant other people would get less free stuff and more for themselves.
No raindrop feels responsible for the flood
I like that. I've said the same about people who get abortions or support social security. It's never them.
-
well then who are the selfish? are they the spread-the-wealth sheep who want an equal distribution of everyone's hard work regardless of the amount of effort contributed? or is it the "Steve Jobs" type who amasses a personal fortune by virtue of his hard work?
selfishness in itself is one of our prime human motivators, I am just contesting that there are 2 different types of human action to achieve this, either the aggressive types who take command and make the wealth or the sheep who huddle in groups and want to shame you into not sharing on an equal basis regardless of you contribution. ( and when the group becomes too large for shame to work, they turn to using the hired force of amoral aggressive types to impose their will because they do not have the stones to do much for themselves but covet.
-
well then who are the selfish? are they the spread-the-wealth sheep who want an equal distribution of everyone's hard work regardless of the amount of effort contributed? or is it the "Steve Jobs" type who amasses a personal fortune by virtue of his hard work?
That's an outside looking in, liberal/socialist view of selfishness. If someone has amassed a lot it must be because they're selfish.
Jobs may or may not have been selfish. I don't know.
I meant selfish in terms of a human, personal trait where one thinks of his gain first before another's whatever form that takes--aggressive or not.
-
sorry, when I think of selfish I think of the stingy types who hold dearly to their stuff and won't share, give the smallest amount when the hat is passed and will take an extra cookie when the plate is passed. in other words, ones who view their happiness and welfare in light of what they possess. I use Steve Jobs, maybe as an inappropriate example of the businessperson who will do anything for the buck, perhaps Jobs is not the best example, maybe Ken Lay would have been better.
that archetype can be found on the left and the right, I think I am more about the makers than the takers being similar to the agressives and the passives, those will take control of their destiny and those who want to just lay back and let destiny wash over them as long as their is a verifiable flow of food and shelter.
-
sorry, when I think of selfish I think of the stingy types who hold dearly to their stuff and won't share, give the smallest amount when the hat is passed and will take an extra cookie when the plate is passed. in other words, ones who view their happiness and welfare in light of what they possess. I use Steve Jobs, maybe as an inappropriate example of the businessperson who will do anything for the buck, perhaps Jobs is not the best example, maybe Ken Lay would have been better.
that archetype can be found on the left and the right, I think I am more about the makers than the takers being similar to the agressives and the passives, those will take control of their destiny and those who want to just lay back and let destiny wash over them as long as their is a verifiable flow of food and shelter.
There is taking control of your destiny within a moral framework and without one. You can be as greedy and unsharing as you want as far as I am concerned as long as you aren't holding a gun to my head and telling me I must do business with you. You can do anything for the buck, but using force to take the buck from me without my consent. If you control your own destiny by attempting to control by force, threat or other coercion, the destiny of others, you are a moral degenerate.
-
so you believe that the IRS, for example, by use of force to take your money, is degenerate?
-
so you believe that the IRS, for example, by use of force to take your money, is degenerate?
If Men were angels we would have no need of government at all. They are not, so we need a degenerate institution to deal with degenerate people as a necessary evil. We authorize force to be used against degenerates who do not abide by the agreements ( public or private) that are made with the consent of all parties.
The only taxes we legitimately owe are those used to pay for the services we consented to the government providing, which do not include welfare, social security, and any number of regulatory agencies just to name a few. We gave our consent to be taxed only to a limited government. The government is now unlimited in scope and power, and those collecting the taxes are therefore collecting them by illegitimate force, pretending its still a legitimate use of force under our agreement.
-
do you believe that all the legislation that created such entitlement programs etc is not legitimate legislation. where do the citizens bare responsibility for re-electing these representative. all of what congress does is the responsibility of the governed since our redress is to elect new representatives to undo the evil wrought by those not working the will of the people.
I find it easy for many to blame congress yet they return these miscreants to congress repeatedly. it is, in actuality, our fault and our responsibility alone to redress the corruption of our constitution.
-
do you believe that all the legislation that created such entitlement programs etc is not legitimate legislation.
No. It's blatantly unConstitutional.
where do the citizens bare responsibility for re-electing these representative. all of what congress does is the responsibility of the governed since our redress is to elect new representatives to undo the evil wrought by those not working the will of the people.
I find it easy for many to blame congress yet they return these miscreants to congress repeatedly. it is, in actuality, our fault and our responsibility alone to redress the corruption of our constitution.
Whoa. Easy with the "our". I already outlined my electoral choices, if you can call them that, so "we" are not re-electing anybody; I'm stuck with non-representative representation.
-
1-Past congresses, presidents and courts...the democrat party...enablers in the republican party...unelected bureaucrats...the MFM that is 90% controlled by leftists...and lazy and stupid people have destroyed the representative republic our founders created, destroyed the sovereign status of the states and undermined their essential role as checks to centralized power, their role as incubators of republican innovation and co-guarantor of individual rights and liberty...they've altered and destroyed voting integrity by passing amendments (some under nefarious circumstances) and laws that change the requirements, term and process of electing representatives...and have turned the constitutional framework into a national suicide pact.
2-Pretending we live in a functional constitutional representative republic is not going to change anything.
-
A lot of things are "law of the land" but are patently unconstitutional. The Constitution is quite clear that unless a power is specifically delegated to the Federal government, then it remains the sole prerogative of the several states or the people themselves.
The idea that the Federal government should ever have millions of pages of laws, codes, and regulations is anathema to the Constitution that created that government. The Constitution is supposed to function like a contract between the people, the states, and the Federal government. The Federal government is the creation of the states. They instituted it to broker among themselves and with foreign entities. It cannot possess any power not first granted to it by the states and the people. I know everyone here knows all that, it just bears repeating. It's mindboggling how far we have gone from that. Our system of government now seems to operate on a principle of "well Washington has gotten away with it for so long and in so many different instances, that's just how it is and it would be stupid to try and stop it now".
Any contract not interpreted literally and under its original meaning is no contract at all. What's the point of a rule book if it can be reinterpreted at will? Yes, the people do bear a substantial portion of the blame for this state of affairs, for allowing it to happen and for allowing it to continue by reelecting politicians who do this damage. But at some point that amounts to blaming the victim, because so many of them cannot even conceive that it's wrong, that it's a Federal government simply arrogating whole new authority to itself. There is an enormous normalcy bias at work now. People in Congress like Pete Stark are on record as saying outright that the Federal government can do whatever it wants, and numbnuts John Roberts evidently agreed. But just because they assert it doesn't make it so, which leads to the next point.
Everything in politics since the beginning of time ultimately comes down to who can force his vision on everyone else. We contrive niceties and rules in an effort to buffer against that reality, and those contrivances can work well for a time here and there. But what do you do when the rules are openly flaunted? You're then back to the central premise of politics: who can force his will on others? I have no doubt we are on that inexorable trajectory and the question is going to be answered in the same ways that it always has been.
-
I find it easy for many to blame congress yet they return these miscreants to congress repeatedly. it is, in actuality, our fault and our responsibility alone to redress the corruption of our constitution.
What we are witnessing is the tyranny of majority. We can redress the corruption of our constitution to the best of our ability, and if the majority votes for politicians who promise free sh*t, our redress is meaningless. They could vote for all our heads on a pike, and our redress would be meaningless.
You've mentioned before that you find our gloomy-gus mood a bit unnerving. This is one of the reasons why it is so. We've come to the understanding that our constitution is for all intents and purposes a shadow of a document, and that politicians have built a majority that will tacitly mandate the unconstitutional rule of men over the constitutional rule of law.
Tyranny of the majority. If one wishes to argue that we haven't "tipped" over the edge yet, that's fine. But then one must also look around and understand that we are in the midst of the Left's Coup de Grace. They are furiously creating more of what they need for final control: chaos, uncertainty, erosion of confidence, dependency, and millions of suddenly poor people without a moral rudder.
Edited to add: it may be our responsibility alone, to redress the corruption of our constitution. But when we do, and the majority votes instead for more free sh*t, then we have a decision to make. We must realize that the redress of corruption may not come from the political mechanisms contained within the constitutional process.
-
"Tyranny of the majority" is just another term for "democracy", we were not founded as a "democracy" and should not desire to be a "democracy"! The Founders feared the tyranny of many just as much as the tyranny of one! It is why they created a representative republic with hard codified insoluble individual rights and a system of government with many checks and balances...all of which has been undermined, perverted or outright destroyed. Welcome to the age of the tyranny of democracy...our end will be as the Founders and people as far back as the ancient Greeks predicted the end would be...and only the Founders example can have a chance at saving the most people from the trainwreck.
-
do you believe that all the legislation that created such entitlement programs etc is not legitimate legislation.
Show me in the Constitution where the Federal Govt was granted the power to do that. Any power is not explicitly granted ( or necessary to a power that is) that it is reserved to the States or the people. Any law passed without the consent of the governed is illegitimate.
I find it easy for many to blame congress yet they return these miscreants to congress repeatedly. it is, in actuality, our fault and our responsibility alone to redress the corruption of our constitution.
At this point, I don't even think you can say that. The election process is so corrupt its laughable, and the GOP can't even legally contest the results. The US Treasury ( and the income o our children) are used to bribe people, and seduce them into the moral hazard that is dependence. As Adams said, the system is only appropriate to a moral people, and we are no longer that. The Second Amendment is now the only thing standing in the way of these tyrants. Tree of Liberty and all that.
-
I was speaking rhetorically about responsibility for congress, I can also refer to Jefferson's oft quoted tree of liberty statement, and you guys seems to feel we are at that state.
I think I am frustrated by the sheer lack of concern apparent in the general population who have not already succumbed to the siren call of free stuff. It's like Paul Revere galloping through the town screaming the British are coming and the response is "OK, as soon as "Dancing with the stars" is over I'll check into it".
The subject of an editorial this morning in the NYT is that Ted Cruz is embarrassing himself in his stand against obamacare. That is saying that a representative who is "representing" his constituents is an embarrassment. how did we get here so quickly?
-
Quickly, whimsicalmamapig? The Gramscian long march through the education system has been going on for almost a century; now we have the bomber, the Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers, a respected member of academia. Indoctrinate the kids and everything else falls into place, as we see today with the Owebama Cult of Personality. The progressives/communists have been around since before Teddy the Progressive became president, over a hundred years ago. This situation we find ourselves in did not happen overnight. It's just that the productive were busy being productive and taking care of their business while the slackers, layabouts, fraudsters and thieves were busy corrupting the system in order to game it.
Why do you think the Jack@ss Party fights tooth and nail against voter ID? Voter ID = No Vote Fraud. The Dems cannot win on their ideas nor can they win without vote fraud. Another question, why do you think Owebama was so bad in some of the 'debates', looking like the totally inept @ss he is? He knew the fix was in, pure and simple.
ETA: Antonio Grasmsci is a name hardly anyone on the right knows. Here is a link that will give you a beginning point to understand this man and how his 'cultural hegemony' concept has been largely responsible for the social decline that has been happening here. He 'just' died in 1937, hardly yesterday. Communists always play 'the long game'.
http://www.virginiainstitute.org/viewpoint/2005_09_5.html (http://www.virginiainstitute.org/viewpoint/2005_09_5.html)
To few Americans is Antonio Gramsci a familiar name. That is to be regretted because the work of the late Italian Marxist sheds much light on our time. It was he who first alerted fellow revolutionaries to the possibility that they would be able to complete the seizure of political power only after having achieved "cultural hegemony," or control of society's intellectual life by cultural means alone. His was an incremental, rather than an apocalyptic, revolution-the kind, that is, that we have been witnessing in the United States, and the Western world generally, since the 1960s. With this in mind, we ought not to treat the contemporary "culture war" lightly; the fate of what remains of civilized life may well be decided by its outcome.
--SNIP--
Much of contemporary American culture has as its aim the trampling of moral and aesthetic standards that were once all but universally acknowledged, even when they were being violated. With few exceptions, contemporary movies, television shows, and popular music portray Judeo-Christian morality as laughable at best and tyrannical at worst. To hear them tell it, America is in danger of becoming a theocracy governed by the "Religious Right." This despite the fact that the reigning culture is pagan through and through. It therefore assumes casual or impersonal sex to be the norm; feeds the public's increasing appetite for sexual perversion; depicts all fictional tyrannies as "right wing"; and pollutes the public square with scatological language. Only in rare cases are the purveyors of this "culture" challenged; and then, like the egregious Howard Stern, they pose as persecuted defenders of free speech and command even more money. Almost no one-Judge Robert Bork is an honorable exception-has had the courage to make the case for censorship, in part because of the widespread, but utterly mistaken, belief that there exists a "right of free expression" that is absolute.
--SNIP--
Following Gramsci, Leftists know that Christianity remains the greatest obstacle to their total victory in the culture war. "The civilized world had been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2000 years," the Italian had written; something, he insisted, had to be done about that, and something has. The de-Christianizing of America and the West that he advocated is by now well underway. Inspired by the anti-Christian French Revolutionary calendar, publishers now insist upon the secular "B.C.E." (Before the "Common Era"-whatever that means) rather than "B.C." and "C.E." (the Common Era) rather than "A.D." Booksellers, popular magazines, and television treat with respect anti-Christian screeds such as The DaVinci Code. Courts, including the Supreme Court, declare most displays of the Decalogue to be "unconstitutional." The media repeat the mantra according to which Islam is "the religion of peace" (daily evidence to the contrary notwithstanding), find nothing to criticize in Buddhism, and remain "non-judgmental" concerning scientology and other cults, while at the same time they portray Christianity as the religion of "crusaders," bigots, and yahoos. Members of the Christian clergy have themselves joined in the relentless attack on orthodox Christianity.
--SNIP--
-
The subject of an editorial this morning in the NYT is that Ted Cruz is embarrassing himself in his stand against obamacare. That is saying that a representative who is "representing" his constituents is an embarrassment. how did we get here so quickly?
Deliberate indoctrination and Goebbels like use of propaganda and mass media ( such as the editorial calling Kruz an "embarrasment" - repeat the lie often enough...) Public Schools don't teach history, math, logic and fallacies, or critical thinking skills, and instead try to instill a sense of entitlement, white guilt, a general hatred for America, and a desire for "group participation" and Social Responsibility. Couple that with normalcy bias ( no that couldn't possibly be happening, that would be evil!) and prosperity ( I have an iPhone!, two cars, a McMansion and never mind the debt I have.. ) We were attacked and McCarthy was right. Cloward-Piven was implemented against us, and now we have finally reached the end of that road.
These people won't wake up till the boot is on their neck. As long as they are fed and Dancing with the stars is on, they are happy. Its also entirely possible that the Fluoride in the water really is making people docile ( its the PAX) - or there is some other mechanism such chemicals might be delivered. (No I am not a believer in that, but I can't discount it either) I do know as an empirical fact that people I knew since Childhood, people who were smarter than I, who had critical thinking skills, can not now employ them in defense of their ideology and resort to grade school taunts with me ( and in grade school they were the people who would patiently explain crap) Its like they were replaced with Pod People.
-
weisshaupt: my late husband was a high school social studies and economics teacher certified by NY State. He chose not to teach in the NY state system simply because he could not succumb to the unionized agenda and found work, instead, educating the children of the migrant farmworkers in NY state. He had had many a disagreement with his professors while working to get his education degree and certification as he saw that if you did not regurgitate the "company line" at the university level, you were in jeopardy of not acquiring the certification. they have it locked up before the teacher even hits the classroom.
If this is so prevalent at our universities, I can easily understand what it must be like in a newsroom. Do you think we could actually "play their game" and do to the left what they have been doing to us since the age of Margaret Sanger and that whole bunch of liberal progressives that ushered in the philosophy of Woodrow Wilson and those pansies.
I realize there was a convergence of events and opportunity that allowed the communist/socialist upsurge, but surely we are at one of those convergences, one of those "perfect storms" of frustration and naturally occurring financial, religious and social upheavals that could be used to the advantage of turning the tide.
-
WAR!!!
-
Oh yeah Ben, it's coming, don't doubt it...the race right now is over the trigger...plan accordingly. ;)
-
Ben is right. It will come to that.
We can't do to the Left what they have done to us for a number of reasons. For one thing, we don't have anything like the 100+ years needed for a multi-generation march through the institutions. In addition to their use of academia and pop culture to manufacture narratives, the Left has been busily unleashing a demographic time bomb on this country. We may have already reached that demographic critical mass, and if we haven't we will very soon. Importing people who are tailor made for docile dependency calls into discussion the difference in the notion of "freedom" between us and them. The Left defines rights and freedom as material entitlements provided by the state. If you ever have a chance to watch an interview with Oleg Atbashian (he runs The People's Cube website and was once an agitprop artist in the USSR) do so. He eloquently explains how things like "right to housing" and "right to a job" actually in practice means the government gets to dictate where you will live, with whom, and how. Likewise a right to a job means the government gets to dictate what you will do for a living, where, etc.
I actually think the political process could have worked if we weren't pigeonholed into the Republican Party. We have pulled off some impressive electoral results (2010 being a prime example) but every single time we have handed that party an opportunity its leadership have systematically yanked the rug out from under us. The reactions to Ted Cruz by his own party should finally convince even the most incredulous that this is deliberate hostility to conservatism by the party. The turning of backs on the GOP really began in earnest once it become clear that even our historical margins of victory from 2010 would be squandered. By 2012 Republican turnout was already dwindling. Rush Limbaugh just a few minutes ago on his show pointed out the fact that if Republican turnout in 2012 had matched the turnout from 2008, Barack Obama would not be president right now.
I'm afraid we're simply at the point where the Left has been allowed too much time to build a bureaucratic fortress for itself and its policies, combined with deliberate re-engineering of this country's demographics, combined with systematic vote fraud. The silver lining is that the Left is like that pathological liar who can't remember which lie he told to whom and when, and ends up with a manufactured reality that cannot stand on its own. The Left has sowed the seeds of its own destruction.
-
It seems to me that a majority of conservatives have decided to just wait for the left to self-destruct. I am imagining that many of these who think this way are of my elder age group and find this the easiest way to await vengeance on the evil of the left.
I am not so sure that the destruction of the left is all that apparent. the largesse of this country can allow them to continue for quite a while to the point that they can create a stasis of sorts that will become global in nature.
I find it almost ironic that the left has been running around blaming the masons for the creation of a "new world order" to dominate the world when, in fact, they have been striving for this via a world order of global socialism all the while. I come from a masonic family and I do not remember much talk of global world orders as they depict, but I do see a brotherhood of like-minded communists working together for no good.
I cannot get to that state where I can await the self-destruction of the left and do nothing more than savor the awaited catastrophe. I admire sen cruz even though his apparent quixotic "speech" did nothing in actuality but consign him to history's leger of do-gooders. at least he took a stand.
-
I am not so sure that the destruction of the left is all that apparent. the largesse of this country can allow them to continue for quite a while to the point that they can create a stasis of sorts that will become global in nature.
You have 30-60 Trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 30 years, They aren't even living on the largess of this country now... over 1 Trillion in deficit every year now being racked up and will increase geometrically by around 6-8% a year. The banking sector and stock market now completely dependent upon the Fed QE, and bond auctions dependent upon the cronies buying the excess with the dollars they just borrowed into existence. And don't forget the Quadrillion in derivatives. And the bad housing market loans. And the bad student loans. The Destruction of the Currency is mathematically assured. They are dependent upon the printing press just to keep things running now, and their tax base is decreasing, not increasing. I Think we can depend on Hauser's law to keep their revenues pegged to 20% of GDP ( and that is GDP the old way) at best. Since we all know the real economy and income are shrinking, the real revenues are going to fall - and thats assuming that a lot of us don't up and decide not to pay them, or file 15 amended returns on paper, or fake returns with stolen serial numbers. IF we don't decide to sabotage all sorts of infrastructure. If we don't break down into an all out war.
There is no Stasis I can see them achieving. The debt will keep increasing till the holders of dollars overseas start cashing them out for something that isn't providing negative returns. Then the real inflation will hit here, imports will be prohibitively expensive, and we might find foreigners outbidding us on the goods we do produce here. The money may still be officially worth something domestically, but the rest of the world doesn't have to play along, and neither do the people who produce here. Things will go black market. And the Fed just won't be able to keep things running without going full police state and martial law, and that is likely to start that war.
The question in all of this is timing, and specifics, not if it will happen. I just can't see any possible path in which it doesn't.
-
And the Fed just won't be able to keep things running without going full police state and martial law, and that is likely to start that war.
Knowing too many people who already think the government is keeping them safe I suspect many would also convince themselves that martial law, etc, will be the price to pay to be safe and they'll pay it. Not sure seeing the latest report on inflation or rising prices on tv is going to motivate these people.
Some days I see it as being an incident on a non-descript street of small businesses when one day the feds decide to make an example of some guy with a store who failed to fill some form or pay some fine or tax. Cops show up to close him down unaware he's been preparing for such a time.
-
Knowing too many people who already think the government is keeping them safe I suspect many would also convince themselves that martial law, etc, will be the price to pay to be safe and they'll pay it. Not sure seeing the latest report on inflation or rising prices on tv is going to motivate these people.
They will put up with "safe" to a point - but soon as it interferes with going to the latest night club, or doing the trendy thing, they will figure it out. The left always assumes that they will be counted one of the good guys, the elite, and won't have the rules apply to them. As soon as it becomes apparent they intend to make the rules apply to them, then they will figure out 1) they don't like it and 2) somehow its Booosh'S! fault.
Same thing with the economics. Rising interest rate? Sound like something for bean counters to worry about. What do you mean you won't accept dollars for smokes!?! Now it hits home.
Ultimately they are at war with reality, and reality is gonna give em a whupping.
-
Ultimately they are at war with reality, and reality is gonna give em all of us a whupping.
Reality will kick us in the teeth as much as it will the morons who fight common sense reality. Like the crabs in the pot pulling the escapees back, so to with our 'reality community'; they will drag us down with them. All the while blaming us, of course, for their failure, just like Owebama blames everybody else for his fukcups.
-
Reality will kick us in the teeth as much as it will the morons who fight common sense reality. Like the crabs in the pot pulling the escapees back, so to with our 'reality community'; they will drag us down with them. All the while blaming us, of course, for their failure, just like Owebama blames everybody else for his fukcups.
They can try to blame us, and see where that gets em. We see it coming. We are way more prepared for it mentally and physically. I don't have to outrun the zombies. I just have to outrun the guy I am with. We just need an edge over them, and the first one that tried to grab hold and drag me down with him gets the 50 cent solution.
-
I like that. I've said the same about people who get abortions or support social security. It's never them.
(http://demotivators.despair.com/demotivational/irresponsibilitydemotivator.jpg)
-
Democrats now trying to assist Republican lawmakers in getting killed by leaking travel info to terrorists.
A leaked State Department email indicates that officials were worried about the safety of House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa after Democrats revealed his plans for a secret trip to Libya this week.
Issa, a Republican from California, has safely returned from his fact-finding trip to the country as his committee continues to investigate the terrorist attacks that killed America’s ambassador and three others in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.
CBS News reported Thursday on an email that quoted a Libyan national sharing “his concern and his opinion that Representative Issa should not come to Libya for his own safety.”
The email reports that the Libyan thinks, “the people who would harm Rep. Issa are the same people who conducted the Benghazi attacks.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/26/issa-feared-targeted-by-terrorists-after-democrats-revealed-secret-libya-trip/#ixzz2g6mZZ0Bd (http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/26/issa-feared-targeted-by-terrorists-after-democrats-revealed-secret-libya-trip/#ixzz2g6mZZ0Bd)
-
The email reports that the Libyan thinks, “the people who would harm Rep. Issa are the same people who conducted the Benghazi attacks.”
In other words, he think's the Obama regime may be looking for an opportunity to have al Qaeda kill Issa.
-
The email reports that the Libyan thinks, “the people who would harm Rep. Issa are the same people who conducted the Benghazi attacks.”
In other words, he think's the Obama regime may be looking for an opportunity to have al Qaeda kill Issa.
If that were to happen, there would be a war, with or without the impostor's approval.