Recently in a "news" (yes, those are sneer quotes) article in the Daily Mail, the gentleman in the above graphic was referred to as a "gunman" (scare quotes this time). Following the perverse logic of those indoctrinated by the state to fear inanimate objects, it would be reasonable to amputate the penises of all male attendees at an event featuring Lindsay Lohan. After all, the males have come fully equipped to commit rape.The following is excerpted from an essay by Michael Gaddy. I encourage one and all to read the entire article here.
An American, exercising his inalienable right to keep and bear arms, recently became the focus of the state and the media in New Hampshire near where Obama was to appear. Chris Matthews and other members of the propaganda ministry were apoplectic. How dare anyone other than a government bottom feeder be allowed near the Messiah with a firearm? What would have happened had this man decided to exercise his First Amendment rights at the same time he was exercising his Second?
What did the state and the media fear most about this man with a gun? Was it the man, the gun, the spirit of the man, or perhaps it might have been his ethnicity? After all, according to the media, if he were there to object to the socialist plans of Obama that would reveal his latent racism. We all know, white people concerned about government taking over their health care want to shoot anyone who is only half white.
What a masterstroke it was for the state to get Boobus to admit the only rights he has are those subject to the "reasonable" restrictions of his masters. The precedent has been set and we have agreed; you must submit yourself before the god called government, pass their background checks, take their approved qualification course, submit the required monies and wait for your ID card certifying you have permission from the state to exercise at least one of your former inalienable rights!
If you, and/or a member of your family, are assaulted by a madman with a weapon while in a restaurant, on a school campus, in church, at the mall, in a bank, in the parking lot where you shop or work, in a carjacking or a mugging, or visiting Obama’s home town, you must remember, the only people allowed to defend their lives and those of their loved ones are those who have been sanctioned by the state to do so. That is freedom in America today, granted by the state, bought and paid for.
Through our inactions and apathy we have acknowledged the state to be the masters of our lives; perhaps we can apply for the privilege of having our own health care, the right not to be forcibly injected by some vaccine whose side effects are worse than the disease or the right not to be imprisoned in a FEMA camp. Remember, we traded our rights for security. It is turning out to be one heck of a bad bargain.
Resistance, anyone?
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ indeed!
cross posted at: Eternity Road
18 comments:
The closeup of the guy holding the sign was enough to scare me. He looked half chimpanzee with that heavy brow of his. Heard about some of his interviews, that he had a brain to match our monkey brethren. Can you imagine if someone would of carried a gun at a W event? The poor bastard would of been hauled off to Guantanamo, labeled a terrorist, never to be heard from again. And probably water boarded just for the fun of it. Bet you cons are longing for the good old W days already. You all better get out early, start raising money now, for your new patron saint of delusional, Palin.
Eon, are you going to help the crazy cons water the tree of liberty with blood, as apparently the nut in the picture wants to?
"Following the perverse logic of those indoctrinated by the state to fear inanimate objects, it would be reasonable to amputate the penises of all male attendees (thank Dear God you don't want to amputate other than male penises) at an event featuring Lindsay Lohan. After all, the males have come fully equipped to commit rape."
---
in⋅an⋅i⋅mate
1. not animate; lifeless.
Eon, you just don't seem to understand how foolish you cons sound.
Are you calling a penis an inanimate object?
Why are so many cons proud of their intellectual in-curiosity, like W, like Palin?
Reaper,
Thank you for your "kind" and inane comments.
Sorry to rain on your parade but Leonidas is not a conservative. The label is libertarian (small l).
With regard to penises as inanimate objects; unless connected to a willful (and capable) human, they definitely qualify as such. See also leftists definitions of guns as phallic symbols.
As for "intellectual in-curiosity", did visions of the Marxist Messiah cause a thrill going up your leg as it did for Chris Matthews?
Speaking of penis's and erectile dysfunction, and Obama and Palin all in one breath, Obama is the intellectual, correct? Palin is the symbol of erectile dysfunction, correct? Am I confused? I may agree, I am confused as to why Palin is your voice, as in your old voice, magnified in all that was and is still wrong.
Eon, Seems the common sense man (sorry if that offends you) would advocate being a progressive, not a liberal, not a libertarian, not a Crazy Con.
pro⋅gres⋅sive
1.favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
Eon, why do you hate progress? Do you want to go back to blood letting?
I am confused as to why Palin is your voice,..."
As to your being confused, that is an understatement. When did the subject of "Palin" enter this discussion? Nor has the subject of "erectile dysfunction" emerged. As for any premises underlying this "debate" please present them for my acceptance or rejection prior to assuming that they apply.
Regarding Obama the "intellectual"; this is risible. "57 States, Austrian "language", the "tornado in Kansas that killed 10,000 etc.
The term "progressive" has been adopted by leftists following the discrediting of the term "liberal". You adopt the common practice of leftists by applying the word "hate" to any concept with which you disagree. The definition of "progressive" which you cite includes "improve". You will encounter considerable disagreement on that issue.
Get a grip Reaper.
As for uttering the term "common sense man" and "progressive" in the same sentence; that is an oxymoron.
"Progressive"
--
Isn't it a beautiful word?
pro⋅gres⋅sive
1.favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform...
Can't we all live and move on??? Communism is 99 percent dead. Lets move on. Communism was bad. We defeated communism. Let's progress. Let's solve mankind's next... problem, what would you say is mankind's next major problem??? Government? Wasn't that communism's problem and didn't we defeat that? Do you see a common denominator with Palin, Bush the dumber, and 9/11??? Hmmmm.
"Reaper,
Should you wish to experience a level of discussion on this subject beyond the capabilities of Leonidas you may comment here where it is cross posted. Good luck."
---
Eon, Couldn't get a post through to Eternity Road. Tried once, then gave up. What should I do?
Reaper,
Be patient. Fran screens comments. You will get through.
Eon, your Crum buddy does not seem to like dissenting opinions. I see lots of other bs stuff getting through, but not my simple questions.
Reaper,
I don't see the comments submitted at ER and thus am not prepared to evaluate them. The questions you have thus far asked in this thread Are:
1. "Can you imagine if someone would of[sic] carried a gun at a W event?"
2. "Eon, are you going to help the crazy cons water the tree of liberty with blood, as apparently the nut in the picture wants to?"
3. "Are you calling a penis an inanimate object?"
4. "Why are so many cons proud of their intellectual in-curiosity, like W, like Palin?"
5. "Obama is the intellectual, correct?"
6. "Palin is the symbol of erectile dysfunction, correct?"
7. "Am I confused?"
8. "Eon, why do you hate progress?"
9. "Do you want to go back to blood letting?"
10. "...what would you say is mankind's next major problem???" Government?
11. "Wasn't that communism's problem and didn't we defeat that?"
12. "Do you see a common denominator with Palin, Bush the dumber, and 9/11???"
If you submitted the above 12 questions at ER I can understand that Fran would not post them. They are for the most part inane, vacuous, academic and moot. ER has a higher intellectual standard than I enforce here. I have addressed those of your questions that merit a response and ignored those of the "when did you stop beating your wife?" variety. I suggest that you either undertake a blog of you own or confine your comments to such sites as Daily Kos or Democratic underground.
He cannot even decipher Greek letters, even with the help of a web browser, Leonidas (not Eon, Reaper, you stupid ignorant lout). I’m surprised that you allowed him to hang about as long as you did. From the first comment, no real substance other than insult and abuse. I know you appreciate dissenting opinions, but his were neither reasoned dissent nor opinion – they were simply inane, rambling insults that used neither proper syntax or punctuation. I hope that Reaper isn’t the best that the opposition has to offer, or we’re all screwed (but them first.)
As to the topic at hand, I’m not particularly thrilled with a man showing up at a place where our president is supposed to be with a sign threatening to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. Forget that he was carrying a pistol for a minute and consider that the sign that he was holding was a (not so) thinly veiled threat against the POTUS. Like him or not, I think we can all agree that is total bull. The guy overstepped. Not legally, mind you, but ethically and morally and whatever other standard you can come up with, that was wrong.
Similar to the advice that I’ll give our friend Reaper, attack the policies and processes and actions, not the man. This guy, holding this sign, overstepped that. A sign protesting the healthcare reform? Sure. A sign threatening to water the tree of liberty with the blood of (presumably) our president, whom he considers a tyrant? Don’t defend that. It is indefensible.
Goobey, you cons are the antithesis of freedom, and block many of my comments. Not going to bother with you all. If you can't get the Crum and the Shade to allow my comments through then screw it. Sounds like another case of the cowardly cons. Glad we don't have to depend on you to fight in the military.
As you all can see for yourselves, reaper has set up a blog account for the sole purpose of posting "comments" both here and ER. The "comments" consist solely of inane, vacuous and irrelevant haranguing.
Reaper therefore has earned the distinction of not only being the asshole of the month but the very first dipshit to be banned from further posting of comments here.
Goodbye reaper.
I'm not even sure he can read, Leo, because I essentially agreed with him in my last post (of course after calling him names, which he earned) and yet he still attacked like I was disagreeing.
It is obvious that the guy is an idiot troll, with no real purpose other than to just sit around and call names and accuse us of being impotent.
And Reaper, as far as having the sand to actually argue the points with you, any day. Leftist agruments are weak and flawed, but you already know that, don't you - otherwise, you would be arguing the points instead of throwing out insults, wouldn't you? I have the time and inclination to debate and argue any day that which i see as right, but I have no time for the likes of you. Later gator.
Reaper,
If you are still around and wish to respond in a civil and constructive manner to the following, your comment will be published. If you simply resort to un-substantive personal attacks your comment will not be posted:
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush said he visited all 57 States you would have slammed him for being stupid.
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as "proof" of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on "Earth Day", would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually "get" what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have
approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.
Post a Comment