Jump to content
Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon!
Within hours of the murder of Officer Goforth.
Oh wait - my favorite recent example is the Caitlyn Jenner Halloween costume. Which was such an egregious assault that the LBGTs got it yanked off the shelves. Even though Jenner had no problem with it: "I think it's great!" Jenner doesn't have the right not to be victimized.
The grievance industry is one of the most asinine byproducts of lefty victim shills. My favorite recent example is one of the Dem POTUS wannabes who was shouted down and chased out of his own event by the BLM thugs when he had the temerity to say “all lives matter.” And then - OF COURSE - he apologized for having said it. Because how DARE anyone presume to suggest that all lives matter? Outrageous!
Oh wait - my favorite recent example is Rachel Dolezal. The miserable, lying, lefty hag who had to pretend to be a victim to fit in with the NAACP. But not only was she a victim of American hegemony and racism, let’s pay homage to her black father: a Marine Corps officer who had to fend off multiple assassination attempts by Aryan subordinates while serving valiantly in the Corps. Talk about a family history of being victimized! Such courage and valor in the face of American imperialism. Shame on white America!
And let’s tip our hat to Harvard Law School’s First Woman Of Color: Elizabeth Pocahontas Warren. Nevermind the tribe she claims to be descended from repudiates her claim. Poco says don’t listen to the injuns. Because high cheekbones.
Clemson University held its uber popular Maximum Mexican Night last weekend. Mexican food served by students decked out in Mexican gear. A single student tweeted his disapproval, so of course the university apologized for the event.
The next time I see someone using chopsticks incorrectly, they damn well better apologize.
Methinks the time has come to file him under 'life's too short', along with with our other malignant hypocrite.
That's interesting, Rhys. I've long thought the same about you. Laughs all around - everybody wins! And your assessment of Mark's contributions are posted not too long after you announced that it's not the “insults per se which upset me -- it was the snide tone in which the message was delivered. ” So glad you're willing to be such a raging hypocrite about these things; quite an effective way to illustrate how the rest of us should behave.
There are more than 20,000 gun laws on the books, and more than 300 million guns. Anything short of Preezy's goal of mandatory confiscation (and make no mistake – by touting Australia & the UK over and over again, that's exactly what he wants) amounts to pissing in the wind.
But he also appears sufficiently astute that he'll never offer anything more than lip service, or else he and his ilk would drop a load instead of just sitting on the pot. The cure he'd like to administer is clearly prescribed in Article V of the Constitution.
Convene a Constitutional Convention. Get two thirds of the Congress and the Senate to propose a Constitutional Amendment. Then all you need are 37 state legislatures to sign off on it. Only 13 states need disagree to scuttle the attempt.
Good luck with that.
That's interesting, Rhys. I was thinking the same thing about uou.
The Va Tech shooter's mental health status would have raised some garish red flags were it not for loopholes in the background check protocols which have since been closed (in Virginia; I don't know about nationwide).
Mental health professionals are already required to report patients who present a risk to themselves or others, so the wide net you're worried about already exists.
To the extent that counseling professionals are equipped to make mental health evaluations and gunmakers are not, what responsibility would you have the manufacturer assume and how would it be implemented? How would you eliminate a manufacturer's conflict of interest, evaluating customers who would otherwise contribute to its bottom line? Should car makers screen its customers for substance abuse or epilepsy? If not, why?
Lewi writes: "Interesting that kind of registry and that level of responsibility would be placed on the counseling professions but not the gun industry."
Assigning gun manufacturers/sellers the responsibility for mental health evaluation is about as sensible as making car companies/dealers liable for the carnage done by drunk drivers. Mental health screenings should only be conducted by counseling professionals; there should be zero involvement from industrial producers/vendors – whose principal objective, after all, is to sell more soap. If professionals assigned to the task are perceived as agents of the state, so be it. I don't see any way around it.
Any meaningful legislative initiatives would necessarily impose severe restrictions on a any number of constitutionally guaranteed liberties. Va Tech – the worst of the mass shootings, in terms of body count - was perpetrated by someone with severe, documented, and life long mental illness. If ever there was a candidate for involuntary commitment, it was him. So do we trash his 5th Amendment rights under the Liberty Clause in the interest of public safety? Or do we chalk up the 32 he murdered and 17 he maimed as the price of individual liberty? Or do we follow the President's advice and make sure that only criminals and agents of the state will keep and use guns; that ordinary Americans be stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights and submit to mandatory confiscation, like the Australians he lauded in his remarks last night?
Charles Krauthammer made some cogent observations in the wake of Newtown, and they remain relevant.
What's 'DUI per se'?
Last login: Sunday, June 26, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |