US Capitol Spraypainted by so-called peace demonstrators
OK, Congress is far from perfect, but here's a bunch of BS. US Capitol Police in Washington were ordered to stand down and NOT STOP a bunch of anarchist losers from spray painting their crap all over the capitol. Granted, there's freedom of speech, but there's also vandalism and destruction of property. They crossed past the First Amendment into deliberate and destructive BS.
And yes, some of you jackasses will defend their right, because you hate the war beyond all else. I'm sure the Iraqis hated that awful war that freed the Kurds from Saddam and stopped him from killing millions more. Yeah, what a bad country we are.
By the way, incitement of riot was once a law the cops enforced. What's the deal Bacon Boys? Are you too worried about other peoples lawyers? You afraid to do your job? Or is it the gutless Captain and Chief of Police who prefer not to make waves, versus stop the defacing of a historic landmark and integral part of the government.
Bet if the White House got that treatment you'd be happy. Of course, if it was a Democrat at 1600 and they were insulted with graffiti you'd be up in arms. Typical bi-polar disorder you leftards exhibit.
V for Vendetta? Please. V was charismatic, you guys are stupid. Britain was in the future and part of a graphic novel, a work of fiction, this is the real world. And by the way, if you guys try and blow up stuff, you'll face a backlash, as will all of your innocent buddies. Wanna blow up stuff? Please, do, blow yourselves up and make sure you haven't polluted the gene pool.
That is all.
And yes, some of you jackasses will defend their right, because you hate the war beyond all else. I'm sure the Iraqis hated that awful war that freed the Kurds from Saddam and stopped him from killing millions more. Yeah, what a bad country we are.
By the way, incitement of riot was once a law the cops enforced. What's the deal Bacon Boys? Are you too worried about other peoples lawyers? You afraid to do your job? Or is it the gutless Captain and Chief of Police who prefer not to make waves, versus stop the defacing of a historic landmark and integral part of the government.
Bet if the White House got that treatment you'd be happy. Of course, if it was a Democrat at 1600 and they were insulted with graffiti you'd be up in arms. Typical bi-polar disorder you leftards exhibit.
V for Vendetta? Please. V was charismatic, you guys are stupid. Britain was in the future and part of a graphic novel, a work of fiction, this is the real world. And by the way, if you guys try and blow up stuff, you'll face a backlash, as will all of your innocent buddies. Wanna blow up stuff? Please, do, blow yourselves up and make sure you haven't polluted the gene pool.
That is all.
posted by NDwalters @ 7:16 AM
6 Comments:
At 4:03 PM,
Marshal Art said…
Can't lefties make their point without being destructive? Without resorting to vandalism and pie throwing? The answer of course is no, because their position is indefensible, illogical, and proven failures right down the line.
At 8:53 PM,
Marshal Art said…
How very, very stupid. First of all, I was referring to the publicly owned government building being defaced by America's losers.
Second of all, why wouldn't I be protective of the Democratic-run congress? It's my congress, isn't it? I didn't vote for any of the Dems, but now that they're there, they're mine as much as anyone's. It's not the right that constantly talks about inflicting physical harm on politicians, it's the left. I'm satisfied with voting them out when I can vote, and supporting their arrest when they break the law. I'll leave pie-throwing and Alec Baldwin-like threats to the lefty losers. That is, unless I'm there to stop them.
Thirdly, no one's vandalized the Constitution like your side has, shit-for-brains. Your side has taken away a law-abiding man's right to self-defense. Your side has taken away an innocent child's right to life. Your side has twisted free speech to mean pornography. Your side has twisted the establishment clause to stifle religious expression in the public square. Your side stupidly and self-servingly(?) believes the Constitution is a "living" document giving you the ability to make words mean what they don't mean.
Finally, you're too stupid to be a terrorist (and considering how stupid most of them are, that's saying a lot), so you've obviously decided to perpetuate the myth that the suspension of habeus corpus applies to Americans without ties to terrorism. But this is simply borne of your baseless slams on the character of George Bush. How very typical of you.
At 8:15 PM,
Marshal Art said…
"To be fair, the right has made their point by destroying the majority of a nation."
This will need elaboration, Kevin. What do you mean by this? I await your response anxiously.
"...I think that's pretty similar to what the right does with the bible?"
This too. I'm always up for educating those with superficial Biblical knowledge. Such statements typically turn out to be as much. In my experience, and I am currently a member of an extremely liberal denomination, it is another area where the left plays fast and loose. But I'm open to anything you'd like to present.
For buffooney,
You just can't help proving it over and over and over again, can you? How very typical of you to imply that the success of their actions determine it's wrongness. "OH HELL, THEY ONLY VANDALIZED IT A LITTLE BIT!!! WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL??!!" How very, very stupid.
At 6:19 PM,
Marshal Art said…
looney,
I don't have to provide anything. I didn't accuse anyone. Proving once again...
At 6:58 PM,
Marshal Art said…
Kevin,
Puh-lease! You don't really believe that our efforts in Iraq are just some superficial demonstration of our national virility, do you? Such a statement doesn't speak well of your perception of reality. And "we've bombed Iraq back to the stoneage" is a bit of an overstatement. I don't know what you're reading, but a visit to HotAir.com to review Michelle Malkin's reports from Iraq feature one that highlights the feelings of Iraqis. And the Kurds are quite pleased with the results of our intervention and liberation. Now, is Bagdhad still fucked up? Oh yeah. A couple of other towns are in question as well. But the trouble is concentrated thus far and continued efforts will eventually bring stability if properly supported and played.
Frankly, there's far less room for "interpretation" in the Bible than many would like to believe. It was written to be understood, not to be morphed to fit one's personal desires. One could argue the need for Baptism, for example, but the mandate for sexual purity before marriage is far less vague. But just considering your example, the Catholic tradition regarding birth control is centered around the belief that 1. We shouldn't let our sexual desires interfere with our worship of God, even within marriage. 2. It is up to God to determine when life shall come to be or not come to be, thus, artificial methods are taking His Will into one's own hands, so to speak. And 3. Many forms of contraception are not contraception at all, but abortafacients and result in infanticide.
Protestants generally have the same value of human life and sexual purity, but believe that sex for the sake of enjoying sex, is a gift from God to the married, and can be seen as separate from the procreative purpose of intercourse. This isn't really different from Catholics, just which forms of contraception are OK.
To find Christians of any stripe engagnig in unChristian activity isn't out of the ordinary, but those who believe they have found permission through their "interpretation" can usually be found to be simply making shit up. In this day and age, truly being a "good Christian" is seemingly harder than ever, particularly as we are inundated with a plethora of unChristian POVs on which few wish to put in the effort to withstand. Those who are truly "good Christians" are considered square or prudes or tightasses or nerds. The Bible is meant to be used as a guide to understanding the Will and Nature of God so as to live in a manner that aligns with His Desires. Of all the varied "interpretations" that one may encounter, the chances of all of them, or even most of them, being accepted by God as accurate or even "close enough" is highly unlikely.
If you study the history of America's founding, you'll find that indeed it was the desire that every "ho-jack" have the right to carry a weapon for protection. This was a point of contention in that most, if not all, the 13 colonies had in their individual constitutions the provision for exactly that. I believe the Federalist Papers also support it, as well as early Supreme Court opinions. It never included convicted criminals, and I don't believe it would contradict the founders intent to prohibit the mentally ill from owning a weapon. But law-abiding citizens? Absolutely. And why would you fear a law-abiding citizen? BTW, it doesn't mean you HAVE to if you don't want to. The authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights had no intention of leaving anything open-ended. It is the self-serving and fact-distorting left that has pushed the notion of a "living" document, not the founders.
At 7:02 PM,
Marshal Art said…
Kevin,
BTW, I really like that expression, "ho-jack". I'll enjoy injecting that into my personal lexicon. "ho-jack". Cool.
Post a Comment
<< Home