• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Breitbart: We have the guns

Μολὼν λαβέ;1059814421 said:
Like this?
Yep...that pretty much put the butter on the biscuit with that comment. And Breitbarts comments were considered moronic? "I wish you would try"? Freqin interweb heeeee ro.
 
Got to tell you since the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, it is difficult to know what is political rhetoric, and what is a real threat. It is not just Breitbart. Perry is calling Social Security a Ponzy scheme, Bachman is 'passing on' information about vaccines causing mental illness that is totally unfounded.

Either more will be killed or this stuff will just go a way as political noise. As a supporter of President Obama, I am beginning to wonder how much of what he says is 'just talk' and how much is really going to happen. I guess result of The American Jobs Act will tell that story. I like President Obama, and I supported him based on his campaign. But now, I figure he is either in the back pocket of Wall Street like the Republicans, or he is the worst negotiator ever. I keep hearing Obama does not like conflict - well why did he run for president? I am among those sending private letters to Hillary Clinton to rethink her future.
 
We have had this argument on the board many times. The reality is that the Nazi party took aspects of left and right ideology, basically whatever worked best for what Hitler wanted.
I do not disagree. Socialists seldom use nationalism as a driving motivational force until they are in real trouble. The Soviet Union reverted to the use of national heroes during the Great Patriotic War with their former secret buddies, the Nazis. Hitler just used nationalism a bit sooner.
 
So the GDR was really democratic, right?
Of course. They were democratic in the same way that all socialist or communist countries claim to be. Clinton did it all for the children. Communists do it all for the people.
 
While that may be true, it would be little more than standard fare from the right wing talk media playbook (verbal bomb throwing; who knows what they really believe vs what they publicly posture for the rabid base?).

However, it is indicative of the right wing talk media authoritarian streak, in that they espouse violent methods to achieve their goals. . . .

Now in Breitbart's case this is surely nothing more than false bravado, for he seems to be somewhat of a pansy (no insult intended, just an observation; compared to Rick Perry, who I believe would indeed pop a cap in your ass if he felt sufficiently motivated and thought he could get away with it). But again, it is indicative of the Stalinesque tactics the far right . . .
This from Radical Karl. LOL.
 
And North Korea is actually named The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, so they must be democratic like us.
Yes. We are tending their direction so perhaps we are becoming democratic like them.
 
Wasn't one of the main objectives of elections as a means of selecting leaders to avoid violence as a means to achieve a political goal? Breitbart's answer is that of barbarians, not of civilized people in the 21st century.
It sounded like self defense to me. Do you object to self defense?
 
Wasn't one of the main objectives of elections as a means of selecting leaders to avoid violence as a means to achieve a political goal? Breitbart's answer is that of barbarians, not of civilized people in the 21st century.

Some folks think of people like Breitbart as the Barbarians at the Gate; to me they look more like the Morons Among Us.
 
Last edited:
'Ya know, this is a good reason for you Liberals to start supporting the Second Amendment. If anybody takes Breitbart's words to heart, then you can kill the asshole before he kills you". :mrgreen:
It's a myth that liberals don't support the Second Amendment, most do, some don't. Most favor restrictions on some automatic weapons.
 
It's a myth that liberals don't support the Second Amendment, most do, some don't. Most favor restrictions on some automatic weapons.

There are strong restrictions on automatic weapons. There have been since the 30's. An automatic weapon must be registered, the owner finger printed and have a background check. He has to notify the ATF if he moves and he can't privately sell the weapon.
 
'Ya know, this is a good reason for you Liberals to start supporting the Second Amendment. If anybody takes Breitbart's words to heart, then you can kill the asshole before he kills you". :mrgreen:

I am not living in fear of him though.
 
I am not living in fear of him though.

You don't have to. Unless any socialistic liberals try to start a bloody revolution. Then, if that happened, stay away from either of them.
 
You don't have to. Unless any socialistic liberals try to start a bloody revolution. Then, if that happened, stay away from either of them.
Im about willing to bet that when the whip comes down, most 2A supporting liberals will do what they need to do to protect themselves and their families, should their begin a bloody revolution. The totally ironic part is...thats all Breitbart was saying in response to the question posed about these dingbat wannabe revolutionistas.
 
Oh noes! The mighty Tea Party is gonna gun me down in cold blood. hehe, I has scared.
 
It's a myth that liberals don't support the Second Amendment, most do, some don't. Most favor restrictions on some automatic weapons.

I disagree. There is a distinction between many democrats and liberals regarding gun control. I think most liberals favor gross restrictions or outright bans period. Ever heard of Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, or Sarah Brady? They speak for the vast majority of liberals IMHO.

Remember the gun hating virulence that spawned during the Clinton administration? It's still around except most politicians don't want to end up like the anti-gunners who lost their congressional and senate seats during the 1994 election over the Brady Bill.
 
Back
Top Bottom