They call it Raw Story because it’s never well done
6 Responses to “They call it Raw Story because it’s never well done”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
July 25th, 2016 at 7:08 pm
And yet enough people will believe it, or rather they’ll believe that it’s a catchy enough lie, that they’ll run with it. Just watch.
The pro-slavers may very well have thought that very thing though, just as the Democrats eventually started passing gun restrictions in the 20th century and then originally applied them only to black people (and to the Irish in New York).
So once again, the Party of the KKK is trying to accuse us of doing what they do. What’s new?
July 25th, 2016 at 10:43 pm
No, it never is, and they ban people who point that out. Mustn’t upset the echo chamber.
July 26th, 2016 at 8:15 am
If you aren’t banned, the argument will be made that the KKK and the entire South and all racists went from being Democrats before WWII to Republicans, right around the time of Nixon (his Southern Strategy is cited).
The only problem with this is Senator Roberty Bird was a Dem, as was George Wallace, and so on and so on and so on. But they will trot out that old canard.
July 26th, 2016 at 1:12 pm
It’s the opposite. In the majority opinion of the 1857 Dred Scott decision, SCOTUS kept black people as non persons lest they ” be able to speak publically and go armed everywhere they went”. Accordingly down through history, the difference between a free person and a slave was, AND IS, that slaves were always disarmed and kept that way.
July 26th, 2016 at 1:19 pm
Back before England descended into barbarism and into a neo-slave state, for which many of our politicians now support:
“The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.”–James Burgh
(1714-1775), English Whig politician, “Political Disquisitions: Or, an
Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses” (London, 1774-1775)
Bookmark and Share
July 26th, 2016 at 7:47 pm
The destruction of the Second Amendment would result in a kind of slavery, to government, but the would-be totalitarians want that.
Sometimes I think that the North eliminated private slavery in the South, so that they could institute the public slavery of taxation, and thereby have the benefit of the productivity that formerly went to the slave masters.
How many days a year do you work for free, as if you were a slave, so that the money you earn can go to your masters in Dee Cee?