Obama, surrounded by children, pointed out he really doesn't care about the Constitution, or you, today. How do I know this? His administration allowed illegal firearm purchases, to take out bad guys in Mexico, which ended the lives of many Mexicans and a few U.S. citizens, yet he's wanting to take your guns away, which is prohibited by the Second Amendment..
Connecting the dots: On any given day, this administration can decide to avoid the law, give somebody a weapon and your death may be the consequence of their action. Meanwhile, the same administration is in the process of removing your ability for defense.
It seems to me this isn't the first time people were lulled into complacency. Of course, most of those complacent people are together now, in mass graves without any marker to show their final location. That, or a memory and a mention in a historical text that is not used for teaching these days.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Too Many People are Uninformed
That's why it's best to constantly pound out facts, ignore arguments and constantly use words that steer them in the right direction. For instance:
The issue of gun control is treated like some bizarre badminton contest that never ends. There's only one way to approach the subject : It's my right to keep and bear arms. There's nothing to discuss and you can go soak your head. If the commentators on television can't do this, they only have read what I wrote. I'll repeat it, in a larger font:
It's my right to keep and bear arms. There's nothing to discuss and you can go soak your head.
The issue of gun control is treated like some bizarre badminton contest that never ends. There's only one way to approach the subject : It's my right to keep and bear arms. There's nothing to discuss and you can go soak your head. If the commentators on television can't do this, they only have read what I wrote. I'll repeat it, in a larger font:
It's my right to keep and bear arms. There's nothing to discuss and you can go soak your head.
Irony or Hypocrisy?
The Second Amendment,. like the first amendment is included in the the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which clarified the rights of individuals. For those that aren't up to speed, it's called the Bill of Rights.
For some reason, many in politics and the media can't grasp the concept of rights, except in certain situation or only for those they consider important. For instance, the media will defend the right of free speech, which is explained in the First Amendment, but act as though the right to keep and bear firearms, which is explained in the Second Amendment is negotiable and think nothing of reporting restrictive gun laws as though a fundamental right - spelled out in the Constitution - is some philosophical item for discussion.
So is it irony, or hypocrisy? I think it's both, but that's not the problem. The problem is that the right to keep and bear firearms - like all rights - is a right that can't be changed for the whims of the ignorant or devious. It's a right and that's what every reporter, pundit, politician, or anyone else, should be using as the focus for their discussion. Until that right is changed by the methods defined by the Constitution, any discussion is moot. It's a right and it shall not be infringed.
For some reason, many in politics and the media can't grasp the concept of rights, except in certain situation or only for those they consider important. For instance, the media will defend the right of free speech, which is explained in the First Amendment, but act as though the right to keep and bear firearms, which is explained in the Second Amendment is negotiable and think nothing of reporting restrictive gun laws as though a fundamental right - spelled out in the Constitution - is some philosophical item for discussion.
So is it irony, or hypocrisy? I think it's both, but that's not the problem. The problem is that the right to keep and bear firearms - like all rights - is a right that can't be changed for the whims of the ignorant or devious. It's a right and that's what every reporter, pundit, politician, or anyone else, should be using as the focus for their discussion. Until that right is changed by the methods defined by the Constitution, any discussion is moot. It's a right and it shall not be infringed.
Monday, January 14, 2013
A New Planet for Star Wars Video Game
It's going to be a gay planet. How this all works is beyond me. Will killing an evil gay villain be a hate crime?
I've played a few video games and watched others. While I may be missing something, I've never seen any reason for relationships, since everyone is killing each other, or fighting monsters. Maybe they'll have a "time out" section, where all the characters go to a gay bar, say something out of line and end up in a big fight with blasters.
Who knows what will happen and some gamers are upset. Besides having to explain the characters, they'll have to explain to their children why C-3PO has a lisp.
I've played a few video games and watched others. While I may be missing something, I've never seen any reason for relationships, since everyone is killing each other, or fighting monsters. Maybe they'll have a "time out" section, where all the characters go to a gay bar, say something out of line and end up in a big fight with blasters.
Who knows what will happen and some gamers are upset. Besides having to explain the characters, they'll have to explain to their children why C-3PO has a lisp.
Is it Embezzlement, or Tax Fraud?
The misuse of Air Force One to take the President, or his entourage on vacation is far from what I would consider official use of public funds. With this in mind, what would you call it?
If it's intentional use of funds without permission for personal use, I'd call it embezzlement. In any other setting, there's no other definition that fits it better. Being the President doesn't exempt you from laws.
If embezzlement is too harsh for the tender eyes of those that are unwilling to admit they're getting screwed, then how about tax fraud? Does he claim the huge freebies as part of his personal income? If not, shouldn't there be some huge penalties and interest due the tax payers?
Yeah, yeah yeah. I can hear the peanut gallery: "Well, President Bush did this, too." So what. If any President misuses public funds, they should be accountable. Send Bush a tax bill, too, with penalties and interest. They'd send their minions to do the same to me. Fair is fair.
If it's intentional use of funds without permission for personal use, I'd call it embezzlement. In any other setting, there's no other definition that fits it better. Being the President doesn't exempt you from laws.
If embezzlement is too harsh for the tender eyes of those that are unwilling to admit they're getting screwed, then how about tax fraud? Does he claim the huge freebies as part of his personal income? If not, shouldn't there be some huge penalties and interest due the tax payers?
Yeah, yeah yeah. I can hear the peanut gallery: "Well, President Bush did this, too." So what. If any President misuses public funds, they should be accountable. Send Bush a tax bill, too, with penalties and interest. They'd send their minions to do the same to me. Fair is fair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)