Liberal Crybaby Cries About Wisconsin Recall Election.
Another Liberal Crybaby Cries About Wisconsin Recall Election.
As soon as I get the chance, I’m going to put together a longer post about why the Libtards are wrong about Citizens United.
As a follow on to my last post, I dare someone to try to explain what the hell a post-partisan political campaign is.
As the presidential campaign starts up in earnest, it’s beginning to remind me more and more of watching CNN’s coverage of the Gulf War. Remember coverage of the nightly missile attacks on Israel interspersed with coverage of accusations by Iraq that the United States was targeting civilians? Remember how no one ever bothered to ask why we should give a rat’s ass that a country that murdered civilians on a daily basis was accusing us of killing civilians, especially when the claims were so obviously nonsense? Well, that’s what Barrack Hussein Obama’s Presidency has become: The braying jackass in chief telling bald-faced lies about his rivals in between whining about how Republicans are running negative campaigns.
Flow of consciousness style reaction to this nonsense: I don’t get it. No one is answering the phone in the White House, and they think that’s Romney’s fault? Oh I see, what they actually did was call the Romney campaign headquarters at three a.m. and lie about calling the White House. Wait, they thought someone would answer the phone at Romney campaign headquarters at 3 a.m.? Derp!
Remember, Obama sheep: rich white people hate you and don’t have your best interests at heart (unless, of course, they’re liberal celebrities; then you can trust them).
My instinct tells me that these ads are going to get more nauseous and more creepy as the campaign drags on.
Exit question: Why are you people not offended by how stupid they think you are?
Is this Black Panther enthusiast’s declaration that he will exercise his Second Amendment Rights to protect a multicultural center a threat? Derek Brigham of True North seems to think so, and I agree with him. If his statement a threat, in what way is it different from Rush Limbaugh’s assertion that the Second Amendment exists in case the government fails to follow the First one?
Obviously, I recognize some differences. For example, in the video above, the speaker was directing his statement toward a specific individual during a face to face encounter. In contrast, saying the Second Amendment protects the First leaves the parties involved unspecified–there is no indication who will utilize a Second Amendment remedy against whom. Nevertheless, the assertion that the Second Amendment protects the First is absolutely meaningless but for the underlying threat that armed violence will be used, or, at the very least, is justified to defend the rights the First enumerates. Unless you are claiming to be prepared to subject your target to an enhanced interrogation style repetitive recitation of the text of the Second Amendment until he desists in his attack, aside from the underlying threat of armed force the Second Amendment has absolutely no power to protect anything.
My point is not to condemn the rhetorical citation of the Second Amendment. Nor am I arguing against the premise that force might be justified in defense of certain rights; that truth is in fact the premise upon which the United States of America declared its independence and one of my most deeply held personal beliefs. My singular purpose is to point out that when you invoke the Second Amendment, you are declaring your willingness to shoot someone. There is no meaningful distinction between the two.