"Later that day, White House spokesman Josh Earnest engaged in endless exchanges with the press about Obama’s gun-control ideas — policies even Earnest said wouldn’t have mattered in San Bernardino.Wait. Didn't Obama claim that terrorism was due to Climate Change, but that the terrorists were under control and not in this country despite the open borders with full citizenship rights for Illegals, and besides, it's the guns' fault anyway, so the War on Climate Change is actually a War on Guns? OK. I think I've got it.
It’s plain enough why the White House refused to face facts here. The president just doesn’t want to talk about terrorism because he has no interest in fighting it — it’s a distraction from his agenda, from gun control to “climate change.”
With just over a year left in office, Obama is fed up with reality getting in his way. "
Monday, December 7, 2015
Quote of the Day
From the NY POST:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Never bring dialectic to a rhetorical gun (control) fight.
(Paraphrasing Vox Day)
It's all about "feelz" irrespective of any external "reality," so logical argumentation is wasted ammunition.
Here's an example of rhetorical "logic":
The "no fly" list stops all terrorists from flying from one country to another.
The San Bernardino murderers flew in and out of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to/from the United States. They were NOT on the "no fly" list.
They were NOT on the "no fly" list because THEY FLEW UNDER THE RADAR!
Who would have thought that it was possible to "fly" UNDER a "no fly" list, using "stealth" (taqiyya, anyone?) to avoid the anti-terrorism "radar"?!?
Is that anti-terrorism "radar" based on the "science" of "very strong vetting processes" currently in place?!?
That's offensive Islamopohobic rhetoric!
DISQUALIFY! DSQUALIFY! DISQUALIFY!
Post a Comment