If All You See…

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle used by Other People to travel for the holidays, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Doug Ross, with a post on the UN coming with a gun grab.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

20 Responses to “If All You See…”

  1. JGlanton says:

    All I can see is that ugly tatoo so I turned her around:

    http://www.allfordmustangs.com/photopost/data/3175/547.bmp

  2. Jeffery says:

    “The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer,” wrote Judge Andrew Napolitano recently in the Washington Times. “It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us… “

    In the article about the UN arms control treaty, the author suggests that Obama, with his lawlessness and unconstitutional ways, would enforce the treaty even without Congressional approval.

    Then the author uses the above quote from Napolitano. That’s precisely how anti-government cop-killers and fed-killers and their like, such as Frein, McVey, Jared and Amanda Miller, Poplawski, the Bundy Militia, Dennis Marx, Jerry and Joseph Kane etc believed. They felt they were fighting the good fight against the tyrannical police and federal government.

    Do you remember the massive media shitstorm when the right-wingers Jerry and Joseph Kane ambushed the policemen in West Memphis, Arkansas? The never-ending stories on FOX “News”? I don’t either. I guess it’s not important when conservatives, based on their ideology, and egged on by FOX contributor Andrew Napolitano assassinate police officers.

    With conservatives, “It’s always projection!”

  3. Casey says:

    Good one, JG!

    Only Jeffery could be so fracking stupid that, not only does he muck up a cheesecake post, he gets it wrong, again!!

    The Kanes, you mindless feckwit, were not by any definition “right wing” (not that you have enough functioning brain cells to explain any right/left dichotomy), but rather were members of the “sovereign citizen” groups, a recognizably fringe movement having nothing to do with neither conservative/libertarians nor liberal/progressives.

    Just how mindlessly stupid are you? The only ability you’ve ever shown here is that of mindlessly parroting the most popular prog talking points of the moment, regardless of their validity. I know some pretty bright lib/progs -one of my friends is a Socialist; lovely lady- and you are definitely not qualified to stand amongst them.

  4. Jeffery says:

    Casey,

    Apologists like you can’t face the enormity at the roots of conservatism. So you Deny, you Project you deflect. Liberalism is fascism! Liberals are racists! Government hatingm”sovereigns” are not part of the conservative movement! Anti-abortion extremists are not conservatives!

    We can’t really blame you for Denying your cruel past. Jingoism, racism, sexism – intolerance, xenophobia, greed, cruelty…

    Is FOX employee Andrew Napolitano not a conservative? He did egg on the extremists with “… It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us… ” didn’t he? Is it just a coincidence that so many violent extremists carry out acts urged by the conservative leaders?

    Oh, and kiss my ass you pusillanimous sack of splooge.

  5. Jeffery says:

    not only does he muck up a cheesecake post

    Are the juvenile “cheesecake” posts, with links, not to be discussed? Why have the links? And putting the name “Doug Ross” in a post is like waving a red flag. Ross had the most embarrassing set of posts years ago on the GM bailout (not as embarrassing as an odious jimhoft post, but Ross is only human).

  6. gitarcarver says:

    Jingoism, racism, sexism – intolerance, xenophobia, greed, cruelty…

    There they are…… the tenants of liberals like Jeffery.

    He did egg on the extremists with “… It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us… ” didn’t he?

    Are you denying that Napollitano was wrong in his assessment of the Second Amendment? Or are you saying that he is right and that because he is right, he should not speak the truth?

    What is it with you liberals and free speech?

    IS it really your belief that knowing the meaning of the laws of the land is the same thing as saying “burn this down” and “kill cops?” That is the depth of your thinking and your beliefs?

    Your whole premise of “egging on” is flawed and doesn’t match the facts, but facts were never your strong point.

    Oh, and kiss my ass you pusillanimous sack of splooge.

    And Merry Christmas to you and your wife whom you believe is delusional.

    Ross had the most embarrassing set of posts years ago on the GM bailout……

    You calling anyone’s posts “embarrassing” is extremely funny. What were you saying about projection?

  7. Jeffery says:

    gq,

    Well yes, when you have a segment of your movement that is violent and feeling helpless, telling them that government is tyrannical and plotting to disarm them AND then lying to them about the intent of the 2nd Amendment IS egging them on.

    Are you denying that Napollitano (sic) was wrong in his assessment of the Second Amendment?

    We don’t know what you’re trying to say there, but we’re stating that Napolitano was wrong in his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

    Do you really think the intent of the Amendment was to guarantee your right to murder government officials when you disagree with them?

    And what is it with you conservatives that make you so sensitive to even mild criticism? Us saying that FOX employee Napolitano is wrong to say what he said is not a 1st Amendment issue. We see your understandings of the first two Amendments are about equally flawed.

    There exists in America a cadre of unhinged, potentially violent right-wing terrorists – exemplified by McVeigh, Rudolf, the Millers, the Kanes, the Bundy militia, Marx and on and on, who feel helpless and are fed a constant diet of victimhood by the right-wing media.

    Blood is on the hands of the Tea Party and its members for the murders of police officers and government officials over the past few years.

    The “splooge” comment was directed at Casey, not you. You cons like to call people names but take offense when you’re called names. Hypocrites.

  8. john says:

    The right wing has no problem about talking about a violent attack on our government if they choose to disagree. They still worship the Civil War and think that it was justified. look at how many signed petitions to secede from the United states. And then they claim to be Patriots?

  9. Jeffery says:

    The Investor’s Business Diarrhea (IBD) editorial is just stoking the paranoia of the unhinged lunatics on the right.

    IBD Shorter: The UN wants your guns so they can create a One World Order, subjugating the white race. That devious Muslim Obama is just like the Nazis killing Jews, and your only recourse is your God-given right to unlimited weapons to shoot the Feds graveyard dead if you disagree with the government!

  10. gitarcarver says:

    We don’t know what you’re trying to say there, but we’re stating that Napolitano was wrong in his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

    I doubt that you can comprehend what was being said because it goes against what you believe.

    Do you really think the intent of the Amendment was to guarantee your right to murder government officials when you disagree with them?

    Oh look, Jeffery brings out the strawman argument. Napollitano never said anyone had the right to murder anyone. (Murder having a specific legal definition which of course you refuse to recognize.) The fact of the matter is that Napollitano’s statement is correct. The fact that you disagree with him is predictable.

    Blood is on the hands of the Tea Party and its members for the murders of police officers and government officials over the past few years.

    I would expect such unhinged rhetoric from you as you have failed to address the rhetoric from liberals.

    However, even a person with limited intelligence can see the difference between the rights call to protect ones rights and the calls on the left to aggressively attack police officers and other officials who are not doing anything. Are you so ideologically biased that you see no difference between protecting ones rights and murdering police while they are on a lunch break?

    The “splooge” comment was directed at Casey, not you.

    I know who it was directed at Jeffery. The fact of the matter is that you started the name calling on this site as that seems to be all that you have. You have repeatedly shown that you cannot argue a point in any logical or intellectually honest manner. Anyone who says his wife is delusional and then threatens those who point out he made the statement truly needs help.

    The Investor’s Business Diarrhea (IBD) editorial is just stoking the paranoia of the unhinged lunatics on the right.

    How so? Are you saying that the treaty doesn’t exist? Are you saying that the left, which loves the UIN and thinks the US should abide by it over the US laws and Constitution, would not want a draconian gun control treaty or law instituted in this country?

  11. gitarcarver says:

    And then they claim to be Patriots?

    Yep.

    Perhaps john the troll should read a little history such as the Declaration of Independence:

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    Oh, and by the way john, most people in the 1860’s supported the succession of the South. Even in the north, the majority of people didn’t care if the South left the Union or not.

    Perhaps instead of being a troll you should go to the library and read a book. At least then for a couple bucks worth of late charges you could have some basis to make statements.

  12. Jeffery says:

    Here’s Forbes and American Enterprise Institute bitch-slapping the lazy and sloppy Doug Ross in 2009 over his car dealership fiasco.

    Ross had concluded and brayed that Obama closed Republican-owned dealerships and not Democratically-controlled ones. Many conservatives probably still believe that Obama rewarded Dems when GM and Chrysler declared bankruptcy. I ragged on Ross at the time in comments that he was misinterpreting the data. Oh well.

    from the Forbes article:

    Influential bloggers such as Doug Ross noticed that the closed dealerships were, judging by campaign contributions at least, overwhelmingly Republican. … The data indicate, however, that the charge that dealer closings were political motivated is baseless. Obama and his team are innocent.

    http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/29/obama-chrysler-automotive-task-force-aei-republican-opinions-contributors-dealerships.html

    I don’t know if Ross ever apologized to his hapless readers.

    At least in the current case Ross is not making his own argument but is just copying and pasting from an IBD editorial egging on the AmmoSexual Society Helping Our Lives Everyday (ASSHOLE) paranoiacs.

    We can expect the next round of unhinged right-wingers shooting an officer or two. Thanks, Doug.

  13. Jeffery says:

    Are you denying that Napollitano (sic) was wrong in his assessment of the Second Amendment?

    By all means, tell us what your question means. Is that really what you meant to type?

    Taken as written, no we are not denying that Napolitano was wrong. We are asserting he was wrong.

    Please go on about how the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to shoot government officials you judge to be tyrants. That seems to be an interpretation only supported by far-right extremists such as the Bundy militia, Dennis Marx, Jared and Amanda Miller, Ted Nugent, you, Teach and Napolitano. Of course you have the right to feel as you do, but you do not have the right to shoot government officials willy-nilly just because they looked at you funny.

    On this forum and many other right-wing sites, Obama, liberals and Democrats are described as tyrants, fascists, communists, anti-American, and dictators. Do you think you have a 2nd Amendment right to shoot members of the administration because many right-wingers conclude they are tyrants? Really?

    Most conservatives don’t possess the courage of their rhetoric but still call leaders tyrants and dictators and advocate their “removal”. They call legal abortion “murder” (Murder having a specific legal definition which of course you refuse to recognize) and yet take no action to prevent the “murder” of babies except to protest. If they really thought it was murder they would try to stop it.

    So I’m the reason there’s namecalling on this site, lol. Do you ever read Teach’s posts? Namecalling is all I have? (It’s always projection.)

    Yes, there’s a treaty, but no, the treaty will not grab your guns. Anyway, we won’t ratify it. But the IBDs concern is that the tyrant Obama will grab them anyway (he’s had six years guys) before the well-regulated militia can exercise their 2nd Amendment right and kill him.

    We understand, gc, that you rarely stay on point (this is diagnostic of the conservative “mind”), but can you please describe the process by which 1) society decides a leader is a tyrant and 2) how he or she is killed?
    Thanks.

  14. Jeffery says:

    Here’s the alleged Napolitano quote:

    “The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer,” wrote Judge Andrew Napolitano recently in the Washington Times. “It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us…”

    The 2nd Amendment:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Our Supreme Court disagrees with FOX employee Napolitano as they have placed some limits on our right to bear arms, even “the same instruments they would use upon us.” They allowed regulation of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. We suspect they would not allow citizens to possess nuclear weapons or biological weapons. Let’s be honest, if one really wanted to remove a tyrannical government wouldn’t nukes be the bomb? Wouldn’t a tactical nuke be the sort “they would use on us”?

    And how about shoulder launched surface to air missiles? Those would come in handy in a fight with the US government.

    The fact is, the American people should establish our own militia equivalent to our mortal enemy, the American people’s government. It will take about $650 billion a year but let’s chip in and do it! We can have our Congress completely decommission the American people’s government military (saving about $650 billion) and replace it with the American people’s militia! We can even elect our own President as commander in chief to fight the tyrant President, who would no longer have a military.

    Do you really believe the US military has a secret role to suppress the American citizenry? Maybe that would explain the militarized presence in Ferguson MO and NYC. Did you criticize this presence at the time? Probably not since the government was tear gassing Negroes. What if they had tear-gassed the Bundy militia? (Maybe Jared and the Mrs. would have spared the Las Vegas policemen).

  15. gitarcarver says:

    Our Supreme Court disagrees with FOX employee Napolitano as they have placed some limits on our right to bear arms, even “the same instruments they would use upon us.”

    Yes, there are some regulations on weapons, but your leap from “regulations on weapons” to Napolitano advocating the shooting of government officials such as police officers is one without merit.

    There should be no disagreement that Napolitano was right in his statement. Unlike you, he was relying on the Supreme Court for his statement.

    In U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) the Court wrote:

    The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called…”internal police.”

    Those “other citizens” would include “tyrants.”

    Are you really that silly to think that the Framers of the Constitution would have forgotten the acts of the American Revolutionary War in which regular citizens stood against what they felt was a tyrant – a tyrant who tried to violate their rights including the seizing of weapons? Are you really that ignorant to think that the Framers thought “you know, we won against a tyrant, so we should not allow others who follow us to have the same ability to fight against tyranny.”

    Napolitano is right and you are wrong in trying to make the jump as try and smear him by saying he is calling for the killing of government officials.

    Did you criticize this presence at the time? Probably not since the government was tear gassing Negroes.

    You would be wrong, Jeffery. I wrote about it at the time. The fact that you had to bring race into this shows how much of a racist moron you are. There were a lot of people of all races protesting in Ferguson but in order to make a point which does not stand on the facts, you tried to play the worn out racist card. Maybe you try and play it because in reality, you view the world through racist eyes and hate people that do not. That would be typical for a leftist like you.

    RE: Doug Ross.

    I just want to make sure that I understand your point because it seems like it is so far out of the bounds of reality even for you.

    Assume for a moment that Ross was wrong on the closure issue. (Subsequent analysis has and a book by Steve Rattner suggest otherwise, but we’ll let that go for now.) Ross initially wrote about this in 2009 – five years ago. Are you – a person who seldom writes a response here that is not factually challenged – really trying to say that Ross should not be listened to because of a post five years ago? THAT is where you want to go?

    Tell me Jeffery, since you slurp Obama and anything the left puts out, are you willing to hold that standard to the groups you support? That one mistake means the person or group should never be trusted or believed again?

    Why should anyone believe you being that you are wrong so many times here in this little forum?

    In this thread you are demonstrably wrong and yet you keep trying to rock the same lie.

    It is typical of you to throw standards out that you yourself will not abide by.

    Quite simply, you lack any morals and intellectual honesty. That won’t bother you because you have no regrets in lying, but it says a great deal about you.

  16. Jeffery says:

    Cruikshank? Really? I’m not surprised that a southern racist such as you would use the Cruikshank ruling to support his case. I bet you think Plessy vs Ferguson has been unfairly criticized.

    If Napolitano is using Cruikshank to support his case he’s not a very smart former judge (but is perfect for FOX “News”).

    Perhaps you didn’t read what FOX employee Napolitano actually wrote for the Washington Times:

    “The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer,” wrote Judge Andrew Napolitano recently in the Washington Times. “It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us…”

    “It protects the right to shoot tyrants…” is what Napolitano wrote. Look carefully, it comes right after “wrote Judge Andrew Napolitano…”

    How do we decide when it’s time to shoot a tyrant? Who decides? These are the sort of practical questions right-wingers with guns need to know. You may be cynical enough to know that Napolitano’s too clever by half sophistry is just blowing smoke out his ass for money, but we hear talk daily about the current government being tyrannical and dictatorial, and your shock troops are primed and ready to shoot something and “take their country back”. Some of them have already taken action – the Millers in Las Vegas, Timothy McVeigh in OK, Eric Frein in PA. Why wasn’t McVeigh protected by the guarantees of the 2nd Amendment that “protects the right to shoot tyrants”? Is it because he blew up tyrants instead of shooting them?

    You keep saying that Napolitano was right. About what? That the 2nd Amendment protects your right to shoot and kill someone you decide is a tyrant?

  17. gitarcarver says:

    Cruikshank? Really? I’m not surprised that a southern racist such as you would use the Cruikshank ruling to support his case.

    And that is the extent of your discussion on just one of the cases the SCOTUS has decided that supports Napolitano?

    Perhaps you didn’t read what FOX employee Napolitano actually wrote for the Washington Times:

    Oh I read it and actually understand it. That is far more than you can say.

    How do we decide when it’s time to shoot a tyrant? Who decides?

    Tell me Jeffery, if the police burst through your door in order to arrest you without a warrant because you are a leftist, would that constitute “tyranny” in your view?

    The people who fought and founded this country seemed to be able to recognize a tyrant when they saw one. Are you now saying they are smarter than you are?

    (That’s somewhat rhetorical as a slug is smarter than you are, but I digress.)

    You keep saying that Napolitano was right. About what?

    Asked and answered. Try reading sometime.

  18. Jeffery says:

    if the police burst through your door in order to arrest you without a warrant because you are a leftist, would that constitute “tyranny” in your view?

    “If Mr. Garner had just acquiesced to the State demands he would be alive today”, say the rightists today.

    1) So if the State bursts into your home, without a warrant, to arrest you for your beliefs, you conclude it’s OK to shoot them. I can agree with that.

    2) And if the State sneaks into your house at night while you’re asleep to check your mattress tags. I agree, shoot ’em.

    3) And if the State (through ATT) monitors your telephone calls to your half-sister Ahmina in London. Whom do you shoot?

    4) And if the State, hand in hand with the wealthy, conspire to reduce employment, suppress wages, refuse to repair a crumbling infrastructure, suppress the vote of the poor, transfer wealth to the wealthy. Whom do you shoot?

    In fact, if there’s to be another revolution in the US, it will be driven by #4 above, not #1. Why? Because #4 has been occurring for 30 years and #1 is a right-wing wet dream. Freedom! Moron labe.

  19. Jeffery says:

    And back to the central question.

    Are #Black Lives Matter and Mayor DiBlasio responsible for the cowardly murder of two NYPD officers?

    If you answer yes, do you also agree that the Tea Party is responsible for the cowardly murders of Igor Soldo and Alyn Beck in Las Vegas and Bryon K. Dickson II of Blooming Grove, PA? If not, why not?

    Why didn’t brave officers Soldo, Beck and Dickson receive nationally televised funerals like NYPD officers Liu and Ramos?

  20. Jeffery says:

    The rational centrist community is frankly perplexed by the far-right belief system.

    Two assumptions: It’s always race. It’s always projection.

    Any rational person realizes that our guns are not threatened by the government and certainly not by the UN. Moron Labes! Yet, the right is paralyzed with bed-wetting existential fear of something.

    We know what that fear is, even while the rightists will not admit it even to themselves.

    You are terrified by a breakdown in the social order, especially those feral Negroes getting all riled up and administering street justice to the white oppressors. That’s why the Liu and Ramos murders are so frightening to you and why the Soldo, Beck and Dickson murders hardly register. You’re not worried about the Feds taking your guns, you’re afraid of Negro wilding. That’s why you support the police killing unarmed Negroes but defend the Bundy militia for aiming high-powered rifles at agents.

    And now “they’ve” elected a Negro President, with a Negro Attorney General. The always sagacious Glenn Beck ejaculated early on how Mr. Obama hated white people. Suddenly these Negroes in power were going to grab your guns!! Moron Labes!

    Your concern about the Feds is that they may support those uppity Negroes and Mexicans (who refuse to learn English!) in demanding equal rights (re Cruikshank vs US 1876). The elites worry that a revolution of uppity Blacks will become an economic revolution. When poor Blacks, Browns and whites unite, libs and cons alike, who make up most of America, the moneyed elites will be in trouble. The wealthy and their minions in Washington are looting America while your conservative elites misdirect your ire.

    Rightists coincidentally oppose any policy that benefits the poor, partly on account of race, partly on account of the so-called Christian work ethic, and partly out of fealty to their corporate overlords. What rightists fail to recognize is that government policies not market forces are gutting the US middle class. Laws regulating tax, immigration, trade, labor union, wage and monetary polices are designed to suppress employment and wages while keeping inflation ultra low and rewarding capitalists. Misguided Congressional fiscal policy support the same motives.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5391 access attempts in the last 7 days.