Gun Law Voted Down and Liberals Are Upset (Video)(I love this guy.)

YouTube.com ^ | 4-17-2013 | ET Williams

[servo1969]

ET Williams discusses how Obama shows no emotion when talking about deaths in Benghazi or Sandy Hook but is visibly angry when his gun-control bill gets shot down in the Senate.

"Gun Law Voted Down and Liberals Are Upset.
Barrack Obama Is Angry Now.
Gun Control Advocates are Upset.
Michael Bloomberg Is Mad.
Joseph Biden is sad.
Al Sharpton Is Disappointed.
We the people have spoken."

[servo1969]

Please "like" this man's videos. I think he deserves to be heard by more people.

[real saxophonist]

That guy’s good to go. Thank you for this.

[Enterprise]

C’mon now libs. Don’t go gettin’ all wee weed up over it.

[Boomer One]

He’s right on with his comments. If Obama really cared for the children, we’d have more limits on abortion.

[sickoflibs]

LOL, it takes the first minute before he gets started but it is funny:

To Obama: ‘You are just mad because somebody FINALLY told you NO. Since you were a child your ma-ma didnt beat your behind good enough or your grandparents beat your behind and your dad ran off and left you . You didnt have your behind spanked enough now someone FINALLY told you NO and he's agitated not because you care anything about the kids at Sandy Hook, that has nothing to do with it. its because someone finally told you NO. .
Liberals are really upset Joe Biden I thought he was constipated pretending like he wanted to cry almost.......’

Gun Law Voted Down and Liberals Are Upset (youtube vid link).

LOL

[sickoflibs]

Then he goes off on Bloomy....LOL

[Huebolt]

Put him on PRIMETIME ! ! ! ! ! !

[kevkrom]

You are just mad because somebody FINALLY told you NO. Since you were a child your ma-ma didnt beat your behind good enough or your grandparents beat your behind and your dad ran off and left you . You didnt have your behind spanked enough now someone FINALLY told you NO and he's agitated not because you care anything about the kids at Sandy Hook, that has nothing to do with it. its because someone finally told you NO.

I first said this sort of think about Clinton (or King Bubba I, as I preferred to call him). One of the jobs of a parent is to create "walls" for their children, to make them functioning members of society rather than sociopaths, sociopathy being the default human condition.

Some of the walls are for personal safety ("don't go running out into traffic"), some are for dealing with other people socially("don't, point, don't stare, and whatever you do, don't mention the giant mole on his neck!") and some are respcting other people's rights and property ("don't steal, don't break other people's stuff, don't hurt other people"). As a parent of autistic children, I can tell you that job is even harder if you're dealing with a child who is naturally predisposed to ignore or misunderstand these lessons.

Now, in the cases where the parent fails utterly (or parents, more often than not just one parent though), it's usually pretty simple -- the child is completely unable to function in normal society, and often forms part of the low levels of the criminal element. But for those who learn how to survive and deal with people socially, but do not learn respect for their rights, you can get the truly dangerous cases, because these people can be clever and charming. And they're often drawn to careers that put them in positions of authority over other people.

Clinton is one of these people. Just ask Juanita Brodderick. Obama is another, and quite likely worse. Because Clinton was really focused on self-gratification whereas Obama;s focus is on the acquisition of power and using it to crush those who oppose him.

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[cradle of freedom]

Do you think that this may be Obama’s *emperor has no clothes” moment.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . don't mention the giant mole on his neck!

My parents never taught me that one, and I've been paying a heavy price for it ever since.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Do you think that this may be Obama’s *emperor has no clothes” moment.”

So far this year there were three very 'visible to public' confrontations between Obama and GOP's in congress.:

1) tax fight (ended Jan 1)
2) sequester
3) gun control

The tax fight was an easy win for him because they were going up with no bill anyway so it allowed him to propose a tax increase+cut depending on how you looked at it.

Then he got over-confident and started demanding more taxes (sequester) and a bunch of gun control laws. Since he made a big deal about those he didnt look good when he didnt get them.

Liberals spin it as :’We win because the public approved of the gun bill(concept anyway) by over 90% so the GOP will pay next election’ (Morning Joe said that this morning)

Alternatively :”Obama couldnt even get a bill passed that had >90 % support, he couldnt even get all his Dem Senators to vote for it and it shows how weak he is. ” is the other way of looking at this.

Lastly, the reason why Obama lost these two even though polls told him that he would win them easily is that neither are on most voters radar screens, but they are on ours.

[sickoflibs]

Dont forget that about eight years ago after re-election Bush announced he was using his ‘political capital’ to reform Social security, and then that capital ran out fast.

And that was a juicy target for Pelosi to put her sights on

[stephenjohnbanker]

” Lastly, the reason why Obama lost these two even though polls told him that he would win them easily is that neither are on most voters radar screens, but they are on ours. “

YEP