Posted on 07/08/2018 9:59:53 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A pistol is too much.
These people, as opposed to garden variety criminals, are physical cowards and will only attack if they can reasonably expect police protection, or to escape without harm to themselves. Note how they eschew firearms (which would open them to the use of deadly force by their victims and police), yet DO favor WEAPONS that give them a decisive edge in a "fistfight."
Carrying similar weapons of marginal lethality should be more than sufficient to protect yourself from their kind.
I'm with you. At 70 and disabled, if faced with looney millennial leftists even only armed with stick/baton, rock or whatever, they will catch one in the face. Too old to go toe to toe even with mushy young'uns, if someone's going to the morgue or hospital i'd rather it was them instead of me.
If Trump was a Nazi, fascist, tyrant no liberal would be alive right now.
Low informed and slow thinkers always say the stupidest things.
"A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance towards those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions, or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends."
- Henry A. Wallace
- “American Fascism” in the New York Times, 1944
Here's my reply: "Reads like Wallace is describing his hero of that time, Josef Stalin. Wallace turned around 8 years later and denounced Stalin for exactly what he decries above. IOW, Wallace had a Damascus Road experience when the scales fell from his eyes about how Communism really operated. In 1944, Wallace was such a squish about "Uncle Joe" that he was dropped from being re-elected as VP with FDR. Wallace was not ready for the reality of the post-war world. Wallace's 1948 presidential run on the Progressive Party was taken over by the Communist Party of the USA and included a Soviet spy as a speechwriter. So, as far as Wallace having any particularly great insight in such matters...meh, not so much, IMO."
This morning's wet match retort from the lib: "He is just giving a definition, and I definitely see a parallel between his definition and our government now."
Okay, I'm thinking of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders right now.
... is combined with such an intensity of intolerance towards those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions, or nations ...
Now I'm thinking of the Social Justice Warriors who hate so many people: Men, Whites, Christians, Republicans, etc. The level of intolerance on college campuses is now so great that many comedians won't perform at most schools. And if a march is scheduled for a patriotic cause violent Antifa thugs will show up in masks to disrupt the whole thing. The Left certainly has "intensity of intolerance"
... as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends."
And now we're back to the Clintons and Obama with the ruthlessness, the violence. Ask Seth Rich about that. Or the FBI, DOJ, IRS folks. Ruthless deceit? Yeah, that's the Left. They are Fascists.
“Didn’t the devils of Dante say that it was better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven?”
That was Satan in Milton’s “Paradise Lost.”
Because they are actually looking into a mirror and seeing themselves. They can’t face the truth, so through metal delirium their minds collectively see Trump.
Actually an almost fair and balanced article.
If the left should be angry at anybody it should be Obama. He squandered the power they had. I believe Obama is a prime example of the PETER PRINCIPAL. As President Obama was over his head and his own hubris and ideology prevented him from seeing this.
Rather than build a consensus he fell back on “we won, you lost, shut up and sit down”. The house of cards he built is easily be being destroyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
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.