Posted on 01/13/2011 6:57:54 PM PST by Nachum
Now THIS should be interesting.
WOW..... but, Mark — do realize please that Mr. Matthews has given Rep. Michele Bachman extraordinary airtime, so he does have some redeeming attributes — and she couldn’t care less if he mocks her, or intentionally misinterprets her, or interrupts her, or lampoons her — she is IMPERVIOUS to Chrissie Matthews, AKA: The.Tingler, LOL
Chrissy Matthews is a fag.
Pony up Chrissy!
My leg is tingling in anticipation!
Reading that gave me a tingle up my leg! Wish I had heard that.
Darn it..... you beat me to the tingling leg.
AAARGH!
Why does it seem like every conservative is so fired up about this ‘angry radio hosts did it’ crap instead of facing the issue that we should be addressing: this psycho rampaged unchecked until his gun ran dry. This could not be a better case against gun control, and for legal carry. This could not be more clearly a situation where conservative voices needed to cry out for the legal right to carry nationally.
Instead, the national corps of Republican standard bearers all wring their hands and address the stupid liberal distraction! Abject, obvious failure of their preferred policy, and we get suckered into talking about how it’s Rush’s fault? WTF?!?! Profess our sadness and respond to the left’s accusations, and as a soft rejoinder, agree that ‘if only we hadn’t let all the nut jobs out on the street back in Reagan’s day...’ And now, Mark Levin is being just as stupid. The sound bite that resonates in the ear of the public isn’t that Chrissy is a liar—it’s Levin saying “I didn’t do it.” And even OJ said that, dumb@$$.
Thus we get slapped in the fanny by the swinging door of statists and leftists. Maybe Levin wins. Maybe it comes to the point where it’s obvious to the leftists. So what’s their reaction? “The population won’t accept gun control or media restrictions for shutting down these crazy conservatives? Well, time to get more funding for the mental wards we’ll be tossing them into, and laws to make it easier to start committing them!” And Michael Barone and the rest of the statists’ Amen corner start in on civil commitment as a solution to the problem.
NO, this situation makes it clear, puts it all in high relief, that the problem isn’t that we have crazies walking around with guns. The problem is that we don’t allow normal people to walk around with guns where they damn well please to protect themselves from crazies with guns. The real, malum in se, crimes aren’t committed by just walking around with machines. They’re committed by people like this loony harming others. Yet we have allowed the left to stigmatize and even criminalize walking on the street with a legal piece of equipment. We have assented to malum prohibitum in the face of the clear language of the Constitution saying otherwise. And even the latest broadening of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the right to bear arms doesn’t really do justice to the plain language of the law: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Imagine how far, in any city in the country, an adult walking with a shotgun would get before a cop pulled over to have a talk because concerned citizens called in about a “dangerous gun wielding person.” Ditto a holstered sidearm. How different that is from just half a century ago, when the very idea of a concealed weapon permit hadn’t taken hold outside of socialist urban strongholds. Nowadays, you shoot a deer anywhere in earshot of a house, and you might as well hold your wrists out for the handcuffs.
One armed citizen might have stopped this jerk from firing his gun empty. Unfortunately, Democrats aren’t usually armed because “guns are evil.” And these days, a lot of people who might otherwise be armed, even with a small derringer, are nervous about it just because they might break some prissy Congressman’s or State Representative’s exception to the Constitution. “Oh, surely we don’t want guns in bars. Oh, surely we don’t want guns in post offices...or near schools...or near child care centers...or...or...or...”
I’m just glad there are some people out there who remember what the point of the Second Amendment is. Like Dead Corpse, who brought me around on this. Or Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, who knows from personal experience what can happen to citizens who assent to following these evil laws:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgrIsuO5PLc
I think I’d love to see a cage match between Matthews and Levin. Mark would probably have a heart attack, but not until after he stuffed Chris’s head up his tingling backside.
I love Levin, I’d take a bullet for that sumbish. He truly is The Great One.
Reading that gave me a tingle up my leg! Wish I had heard that.
Mark’s website has all the shows that you can download and listen to for free. Click the link, then click the box in the upper lefthand corner (Listen Live or catch the replay) then scroll down on the right hand side of the next screen and you will see links to all of his previous shows). It’s so easy a caveman can do it.
http://marklevinshow.com/home.asp
Ping!
The Gang Rapist Left (Krugman, Shultz, Matthews, Olbermann, Alter..etc) will ignore the challenge because to respond to it will only reveal their gang rapist acts.
Thanks for the ping. I once worked with someone who had worked in Tip O’Neil’s office many years prior — when he was Speaker of the House and Chris Tingle was his legislative aide. She said O’Neil sometimes said to the staff, “God, how I love destroying people!” ...and Chrissy absorbed that M.O. and was loyal to the end... He may have a boyish face, but he’s just as evil to the core.
Clyde Barrow had the face of a choir boy.
“I WILL SUE THEIR ASSES!”
Frink!
Time for Prissy Matthews to put up or shut up. Come on Matthews. Put up $100,000 to challenge that you can prove a link.
I WILL SUE
The people you want to sue aren't MSNBC - at least, not by themselves. The people to sue are the Associated Press, and the membership thereof. Because the AP was found to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1945. And whereas in 1945 the AP seemed "too big to fail," in 2011 the AP has serious trouble with its business model. The logical reason for the AP was to create a newswire which efficiently shared news among its members nationwide, thereby conserving scarce bandwidth. But in the Internet age, bandwidth is not scarce but abundant, and the conservation of bandwidth achieved by the AP is no longer a matter of any import.The AP is the mechanism which destroyed ideological competition, in other than the editorial page ghettos, among newspapers. Before the AP, newspapers were fractiously independent. The AP homogenized them, reducing them to projecting the governmentist tendencies which inhere in journalistic self-hype.With its mission now an anachronism, the AP should be forced to reorganize into a news publishing business in competition with its "members" - or just go away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.