The hypocrisy is overwhelming - not just the libs either.

[Patriot]

It's been a real ride since the Ct. shooting and I couldn't help but be amazed at the extreme hypocrisy I have seen regarding these two events. I shouldn't be surprised but what amazed me is that these morons either don't have fundamental cognitive skills or are agenda driven to the extreme. I personally think it's a combination, but biased towards the agenda driven side.

The mantra from the socialists I: "It's the work of two individuals, you can't blame the Muslims (or anyone else). I know prominent Muslims and they feel they can't even come out publicly to voice their disdain for these individuals."

The mantra from the socialists II: "Ban all guns because all gun owners are evil, not just one madman in Ct. Ignore those idiots standing up for the 2nd Amendment, they're part of the problem."

 

[squatch413]

Both parties want to strip us of our rights. Each side has their targets but in the end they cover all and we get hosed.

 

[Horrible]

Its all about the agenda. Obama stands there with families of Newtown victums as props to support and guilt the American people into supporting his disarmament agenda (propaganda) but won't do the same for victims of the Boston bombings.

This is b/c Islamic Extremism doesn't fit into his agenda and his narrative that tax-paying, gun-owning males are the problem. It also make the welfare state look bad knowing that at least one of these brothers was on the dole.

And you are absolutely correct about both parties being complicit. So, where the Oblahblah doesn't want to pass legislation to take away our liberty in the wake of the bombing, in will step the old guard of the Republican party. Waiting for that shoe to drop.

 

[Lcstyle]

Its all about the agenda. Obama stands there with families of Newtown victums as props to support and guilt the American people into supporting his disarmament agenda (propaganda) but won't do the same for victims of the Boston bombings.

This is b/c Islamic Extremism doesn't fit into his agenda and his narrative that tax-paying, gun-owning males are the problem. It also make the welfare state look bad knowing that at least one of these brothers was on the dole.

And you are absolutely correct about both parties being complicit. So, where the Oblahblah doesn't want to pass legislation to take away our liberty in the wake of the bombing, in will step the old guard of the Republican party. Waiting for that shoe to drop.

This!!!!

Also: libs can't believe that this happened with Obama in office. The world in their minds hates us less now that there isn't a white christian president. So why can't we all get along and "Co-Exist," (lol snicker snicker). If I was a liberal I'd have to jump through some pretty awesome hoops in order to avoid cognitive dissonance on this one. Or not: it's easier to just keep blaming it on the republican party, because hey, they're the liberal elite, and they're never wrong.

 

[Quiet]

It's been a real ride since the Ct. shooting and I couldn't help but be amazed at the extreme hypocrisy I have seen regarding these two events. I shouldn't be surprised but what amazed me is that these morons either don't have fundamental cognitive skills or are agenda driven to the extreme. I personally think it's a combination, but biased towards the agenda driven side.

The mantra from the socialists I: "It's the work of two individuals, you can't blame the Muslims (or anyone else). I know prominent Muslims and they feel they can't even come out publicly to voice their disdain for these individuals."

The mantra from the socialists II: "Ban all guns because all gun owners are evil, not just one madman in Ct. Ignore those idiots standing up for the 2nd Amendment, they're part of the problem."

Isn't it pretty much most of one side that argues both that you can't blame the religion and blames the gun?

Isn't at least most of the other side saying the problem is with extremist religious nuts and leave our guns alone?

How can you make such an equivalence?

 

[wacky_doug]

It's no longer Democrat vs. Republican. It's Freedom vs. Tyranny.

Both parties are currently well stocked with the Tyranny crowd.

Our question with any policy should be simply, "Does this make me more free or less?"

 

[Scarecrow]

It's no longer Democrat vs. Republican. It's Freedom vs. Tyranny.

Both parties are currently well stocked with the Tyranny crowd.

Our question with any policy should be simply, "Does this make me more free or less?"

QFTT

/thread

+reps to you!

 

[JayMcB]

There's a reason I bought a new safe and I'm moving some things to a secure undisclosed location outside of assachusetts. I'm just wondering if there is going to be ANY place that's safe after these treasonous shitbags get through.

 

[Pilgrim]

Our question with any policy should be simply, "Does this make me more free or less?"

Have you ever seen ANY law passed that gives us more freedom?

Laws are by definition for restricting/preventing something.

 

[falcon123]

Have you ever seen ANY law passed that gives us more freedom?

Laws are by definition for restricting/preventing something.

Constitution? After that it all goes downhill.

 

[KiloVictorTango]

Have you ever seen ANY law passed that gives us more freedom?

Laws are by definition for restricting/preventing something.

Does a law that is written to repeal a former law that restricted freedom count? (Ending Slavery, Women's Suffrage, Gay Marriage, etc...)

 

[gearjunky13]

Do i hear a group buy on a spaceship to get off this rock, in

 

[gene]

It's been a real ride since the Ct. shooting and I couldn't help but be amazed at the extreme hypocrisy I have seen regarding these two events. I shouldn't be surprised but what amazed me is that these morons either don't have fundamental cognitive skills or are agenda driven to the extreme. I personally think it's a combination, but biased towards the agenda driven side.

The mantra from the socialists I: "It's the work of two individuals, you can't blame the Muslims (or anyone else). I know prominent Muslims and they feel they can't even come out publicly to voice their disdain for these individuals."

The mantra from the socialists II: "Ban all guns because all gun owners are evil, not just one madman in Ct. Ignore those idiots standing up for the 2nd Amendment, they're part of the problem."

Let's not forget those trusted minions on the left that attempted to portray this as a right wing tea party attack. You will be hearing that twist from the left for years because they shut their ears after that.

 

[ArmedMainer]

There's a reason I bought a new safe and I'm moving some things to a secure undisclosed location outside of assachusetts. I'm just wondering if there is going to be ANY place that's safe after these treasonous shitbags get through.

Smart Man !!!

 

[squatch413]

It's no longer Democrat vs. Republican. It's Freedom vs. Tyranny.

Both parties are currently well stocked with the Tyranny crowd.

Our question with any policy should be simply, "Does this make me more free or less?"

Exactly. You're either a friend to liberty or an enemy to liberty. Tyrants reign supreme in both parties sadly.

 

[Quiet]

Exactly. You're either a friend to liberty or an enemy to liberty. Tyrants reign supreme in both parties sadly.

Don't forget the sheeple in the middle.

 

[squatch413]

Don't forget the sheeple in the middle.

They like tyrants they are enemies to liberty.

 

[TomH]

Does a law that is written to repeal a former law that restricted freedom count? (Ending Slavery, Women's Suffrage, Gay Marriage, etc...)

What is interesting is that the constitution never permitted slavery in the first place. The problem was people as a whole not recognizing some people as humans with equal rights. The constitution never prohibited women from voting either. And it certainly doesn't prohibit gay marriage.

State laws were/are another story entirely.

 

[Quiet]

They like tyrants they are enemies to liberty.

No, they are the ones that your idealism is supposed to protect.

 

[squatch413]

No, they are the ones that your idealism is supposed to protect.

They still are a detriment to freedom. They vote in statists.