Saturday November 28, 2015
Jump to content
"...or pretending that universal visibility of loaded guns portend no harm,..." Oh, NOW we get to the heart of your issue, don't we? Newsflash, Raymond: We have a right to keep and bear arms that is beyond the reach of government, and we will continue to exercise it whether you like it or not. And we have awakened to the violation of our 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendment-guaranteed rights represented by compelled background checks, and we intend to stop them with extreme prejudice: We do not need to ask government permission to exercise a right any more than we need to ask government permission to provide for our own health care choices without government interference or choose who is deserving of our charity without government interference. And when ISIS arrives and shoots up your entertainment video, what are you going to do about it besides die?
"... or willingness to sacrifice our beautiful environment for the sake of inconvenience, ..." Eh? I have no clue what you are talking about beyond the totally illegal regulations imposed by the totally illegal EPA. Are YOU willing to give up the "convenience" of electricity and close the power plants that aren't interfering with the ecology in any measurable way?
"... or misdirecting taxes intended for public education for the sake of increasing corporate profits, or allowing life-threatening conditions to perdure just because they are difficult to change, or taking a purely intractable opposition of obstruction instead of seeking solution to difficult issues, ..." Again, you sound like some Marxist apparatchik bitching about problems that don't exist just to give "useful idiots" an excuse to fawn over you.
"... or making it more difficult for citizens to vote, ..." Why, so your party can bus in hundreds of illegal aliens to vote for your candidate? No, thanks, Raymond, that is a fraud that we will not allow.
"... or advocating regressive methods of taxation, ..." We sure don't want your "Progressive" forms of taxation! Socialism is too expensive for any country; have a look at Venezuela and Argentina.
"... or betraying the interests of their own constituents, ..." You've certainly proven YOUR interests are not the interests of the constituents around here.
"...or otherwise making our state a mockery before the entire country." You mean like Washington, and Oregon, and Colorado have made themselves worthy of mockery before the entire country by voting into (color of) law requirements that citizens must ask government permission before they can hand a firearm to a buddy to marvel over, do it again when he hands it back? Don't worry, we won't -- or if air-headed doofuses do vote it into (color of) law, we won't comply, for it violates at least five of our Bill of Rights Amendments.
Lastly, Raymond: Do you have a government political officer come in and wipe your nose and change your diaper every day? Do you really think everyone else needs one?
Raymond, if there were awards given for hypocrisy, you would win the award hands down. Or perhaps I should say, "hands out." First, you set the context of your remarks by prefacing your rant with "In a country that was birthed in revolution and violence, ..." and then you argue for no restriction on incivility whenever the legislature does anything supporting the principles the founders of our nation fought and died to etch into the Rule of Law for us! You are incredible!
'... such as: denying every human’s right to health care, ..." Where did the founders of our nation argue for the right of those in need to rob everyone else at the point of government's sword to pay for their medical care, Raymond? Your premise makes government a thief of the public treasury!
"...or proposing to take food out of the mouths of poor children, ..." Where did the founders argue for the right of children to rob everyone else at the point of government's sword to pay for their food, Raymond? We have a duty to children, but it is OUR duty, not government's. WE have the right to determine the nature and extent of our assistance to needy children, including the right to deny assistance to the mothers of needy children who use them as cash cows. If the mother can't support the children, she should stop having children and stop being a societal leech. If YOU want to support societal leeches, YOU support them. That is your right: But you have no right to demand others do so.
"...or refusing to implement the decisions of the court in matters such as educational funding, ..." No one is required to obey the orders of a Court not pursuant to the Constitution, or if pursuant to the Constitution, not pursuant to reality. If there is no money, money cannot be paid.
Continued next message.
Reference my comment above about Obama running a sham war to keep his fan base dazzled, please see U.S. Air Force Lt. General McInerney comments on the subject: http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/top-u-s-general-we-are-not-trying-to-destroy-isis/
You know, Ted; it is almost embarrassing to show how out of touch you are with reality, you do such a great job of it yourself. Tell me, do you get down on your knees and worship the Great Peter Aleshire as a God-like "truthteller"? (No insult intended, Pete; I'm sure you are as embarrassed by his fawning attention as he should be.)
Ted, is it your fantasy that the "President is going to overthrow America with his foreign army and then retire to Kenya to live off the pension"? I know of no one on my side of the political fence who believes that, and I seriously doubt you do. On the other hand, he is doing a pretty consistent job of violating our laws: For a partial list, see http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/obamas-real-reason-he-wants-your-guns/.
As for whether Obama is a Muslim or not is academic; he is most certainly a radical Muslim sympathizer as evidenced by several deferences to radical Muslim States such as Iran (see above link) and by the fact that he is preventing our airmen from pounding 75% of the clearly available ISIS targets. He is pretending to fight ISIS to maintain credibility with America's liberal doofuses, but he is wasting huge resources and accomplishing nothing. And then he calls 150 Parisians dead and over two hundred wounded at the hands of radical Muslim monsters "a setback."
If you think "The President hasn't taken anyone's guns nor has he tried; " ... well, Peter rightfully objects when someone calls an idiot an idiot, so I won't, but anyone giving you or Obama the slightest credibility should consider the evidence: https://pjmedia.com/blog/obama-admits-that-he-wants-to-confiscate-your-guns. That is exactly what he wants to do. He has no interest in "addressing" the virtually nonexistent problem of people violence that has been declining steadily as the private ownership AND CARRYING of firearms has increased. His interest is in violating our 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendment-guaranteed rights on his way to finally violating our 2nd Amendment rights, all of which are violated by illegal "background checks" compelled as a precondition to "allowing" the exercise of a right government has no authority to allow or deny.
I will agree Obama has no plans to invade Texas; he would have his a-- handed to him on a smoking platter if he tried.
Lastly, Ted, you are nearly the last person on this planet qualified to identify or advocate the publishing of "true facts": You have no conception of the meaning of the term.
You're here; I presume voluntarily.
Thank you, Don. I would add that even vulgar and obscene should not be censored unless it is gratuitous. And the saving grace here is that vulgar and obscene is almost ALWAYS unnecessary, and therefore gratuitous. :) The English language is rich in the ways of discourse without the necessity of personal insult. The reader should derive the insult from the discourse; overt insults are unnecessary and usually unsupported by facts.
And so because your vehicle was "keyed" because of your bumper sticker (you think), you are prepared to waive your right to freedom of expression, and the criminal vandal wins the day. This is why we are losing the first nation in the history of the planet to preserve and protect the liberties of the people from the arbitrary whims of kings and princes and neighborhood thugs.
If you are referring to my previous letter, thank you for noting that I called no one any pejorative names. If you are referring to Mr. Chamberlain's letter above, note that he called his political opposition "jackals" and "idiots."
Last login: yesterday