13 10 yrs

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

13 thoughts on “Best Speech of the Week

  1. John Wayne LaPierre:

    American gun owners will never surrender our Second Amendment freedom. Period.”

    If more American gun owners had periods, the world would be a safer place.

  2. tsk tsk…. and which ordinary citizen from your country has gone to the UN to tell them to stuff what they’re doing up their ass?

    Not that you have any gun rights any way, but on any topic for that matter?

    List Please

    I doubt the 3 of you even listened what he had to say, and b4 you even go there I am not an NRA member, but I agree with what he said

  3. // and which ordinary citizen from your country has gone to the UN to tell them to stuff what they’re doing up their ass?//

    Troll, should that comment not be on the “IN-GENOUS” thread?

  4. I don’t know you guys seemed to be doing fine on that thread with out me (actually haven’t read that one)

  5. Troll –

    Americans aren’t the only people with the right to bear arms. In fact I suspect my little corner of Essex is as well armed as any part of Texas.

    I’m not aware of anyone from here telling the UN to get stuffed, but I see your government is looking like it’ll sign up too. Not that it matters in the long run. Nothing which comes out of the UN has the slightest legitimacy on either side of the Atlantic.

    One thing: you do talk alot over there about 2nd Amendment rights protecting the citizenry against depsotic government. I wish you’d get on and demonstrate it.

  6. I’ve just listened to a bit of it (until all those straw men got a bit suffocating).
    First of all, it is nonsense to say that the 4 m NRA members speak for the 100 m Americans who have firearms. They don’t.

    Second, he seems to think that the Arms Trade Treaty has something to do with the 2nd Amendment and the right of folks in certain states to bear arms.
    It has of course nothing to do with it, and is aimed at restricting, well, foreign arms trade of course. He’s obviously speaking on behalf of the arms industry, and trying to pretend it’s about individual rights.
    Can people still get away with misleading people so blatantly in America?

  7. Troll,

    “I doubt the 3 of you even listened what he had to say.”

    True. I read the transcript. His Irish brogue was too much of a challenge 🙂


    “Troll, should that comment not be on the “IN-GENOUS” thread?”

    You rotter. You’re being too ingenuous for Troll 😉

  8. Noel,

    “… the right of folks in certain states to bear arms.”

    Ugh. Must you use that word? 🙁

    Here’s what Susan Jacoby has to say about it in her unsurpassed The Age of American Unreason.

    While the word “folks” was once a colloquialism with no political meaning, there is no escaping the political meaning of the term when it is reverently invoked by public officials in twenty-first-century America.

    After the terrorist bombings in London on July 7, 2005, President Bush assured Americans, “I’ve been in contact with our homeland security folks and I instructed them to be in touch with local and state officials about the facts of what took place here and in London and to be extra vigilant as our folks start heading to work.”

    Bush went on to observe that “the contrast couldn’t be clearer, between the intentions of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who’ve got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks.” Those evil terrorists. Our innocent folks.

    Even homeland security officials, who—one lives in hope—are supposed to be highly trained experts, cannot escape the folkish designation. All of the 2008 presidential contenders pepper their speeches with appeals to folks, but only John Edwards, who grew up poor in North Carolina, sounds as if he was raised around people who actually used the word in everyday conversation.

    Every time Hillary Rodham Clinton, brought up in a conservative Republican household in an upper-middle-class suburb of Chicago, utters the word “folks,” she sounds like a hovering parent trying to ingratiate herself with herchildren’s friends by using teenage slang.

    The specific political use of “folks” as an exclusionary and inclusionary signal, designed to make the speaker sound like one of the boys or girls, is symptomatic of a debasement of public speech inseparable from a more general erosion of American cultural standards. Casual, colloquial language also conveys an implicit denial of the seriousness of whatever issue is being debated: talking about folks going off to war is the equivalent of describing rape victims as girls (unless the vic­tims are, in fact, little girls and not grown women). Look up any important presidential speech in the history of the United States before 1980, and you will not find one patronizing appeal to “folks.”

    Imagine : “We here highly resolve that these folks shall not have died in vain . . . and that government of the folks, by the folks, for the folks, shall not perish from the earth.”

  9. Nice one, Richard. You’re right.

    I should have said the ATT is about restricting the rights of states to export to folks in undemocratic governments who use them to kill their people.

    BTW, these gun loons share their opposition to the proposed Treaty with Iran, Saudi, Israel and Syria etc.

  10. Troll and the Tea Party Logic:

    “Florida welfare drug testing results for 12 months:

    % that passed the drug test: 98%
    Cost of test to the Florida Tax payer: $178MM

    Winners: Drug testing companies with ties to the tea party Governor Rick Scott
    Losers: Florida Tax Payers

    Total Savings to the State: Negative $178MM

    Percent that did not pass the drug test: 2%
    Savings to the state of Florida: $60,000”

    TEA PARTY POLITICS. And of course, there is nothing racist about it either, LOL

Comments are closed.