Overstock

User Profile: AboveMyPayGrade

AboveMyPayGrade

Member Since: July 12, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • October 1, 2014 at 2:22pm

    @LibertarianSocialist

    You asked, “How was that a lie?”

    For me to try to explain it to you would be as much of a waste of my time as trying to satisfy an ardent Holocaust-deniar who demands proof that the Third Reich really DID murder millions of Jews.

    Because it can’t be done: NEITHER of you will accept even the most irrefutable proof, because to do so would be to either utterly destroy your fragile world-view or reveal you to be an abject liar, or BOTH.

  • [2] October 1, 2014 at 1:58pm

    TOO EASY!

    “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.”

    DISMISSED!

  • October 1, 2014 at 1:55pm

    Should I take this to mean that you will sanction us USING those shotguns against the “infected” who try to kiss us?

    By the way, do you live in California? If not, you should move there immediately: you’ll absolutely LOVE the new gun law there Jerry Brown signed earlier this week, which you can read about in a story yesterday here on The Blaze.

  • October 1, 2014 at 1:51pm

    OOPS: correction needed to the above

    that next-to-last sentence SHOULD have read toward the end:

    “………tell Obama to go eff himself, and tell him that the only way the feds are going to be returning those kids to those schools is at the point of federal bayonets…….”

  • October 1, 2014 at 1:48pm

    Was Rick Perry fresh off a binge on hallucinogenic drugs when, in telling us that the public should have every confidence that these health workers were making sure the Ebola virus is being contained and treated, he included FEDERAL health workers in that contingent?

    All we get from a federal government headed by Obama anymore, and in fact HAVE been getting since Day 1 of his presidency, is lies, lies, more lies, and even MORE lies on top of those.

    By moving the child illegals that have been invading our southern border all over the country and dumping them in communities in every state of the Union and then forcing them on the local schools without even proper proof of required vaccinations – which would be ILLEGAL for ANYONE ELSE – Obama has demonstrated that the federal government that HE runs is interesting in SPREADING diseases in this nation, not CONTAINING them.

    Personally, I think that when red-state governors find out who these children are and the school districts they’ve been dumped in, and I think they will be able to do it soon enough because the feds won’t be able to shield these kids indefinitely, they should send state authorities to immediately remove these kids from those schools as health hazards, tell Obama to go eff himself, and tell him that the only way the feds are going to be returning to those schools is at the point of federal bayonets, and then let’s see if Obama wants to escalate this way. I say he WON’T.

    Responses (2) +
  • October 1, 2014 at 1:38pm

    There are many OTHER red states that we hope you add to your list, whose people will be even happier to be able to avoid YOU than you will be to avoid THEM.

  • [3] September 30, 2014 at 5:50pm

    What presumably will stop the stalker ex-boyfriend or psycho ex-girlfriend or many of those who would be part of this “anyone else” from making a false claim to get a firearm removed from a potential victim is that according to this law, the person filing the claim has to be a RELATIVE of the person they seek to have disarmed.

    However, it won’t surprise me in the least if the scope of this law is unconstitutionally expanded (as though it isn’t ALREADY unconstitutional) to encompass all these classes you’ve listed.

    Responses (5) +
  • [2] September 30, 2014 at 5:47pm

    BEING Democrats, they probably ALREADY don’t own a firearm nor plan to.

    Actually, I take that back, there ARE Democrats in California who own guns, and they can be found in such outfits as the Crips, the Bloods, MS-13, the 18th Street gang, and myriad OTHER such benign components of society.

  • [3] September 30, 2014 at 5:36pm

    And of course, if in the vast majority of cases that this law is actually INVOKED to disarm someone in California the family members who ask a judge to remove a firearms from a relative they feel is a threat are Kool-Aid-drinking anti-gun liberals and the relative they claim to the judge is a “threat” just happens to be a conservative whose only “threat” to them is that he DISAGREES WITH THEIR POLITICS, it will be just the PUREST of coincidences, right?

    My question is, just how far-removed can the relative who can be subjected to being disarmed under this law be from the family members intent on disarming him? Can some uber-liberal members of a family demand to a judge that some very distant cousin twice removed who happens to be a conservative be forcibly disarmed?

    Consider this, oh, roughly reason #19,048 on a list that growing too long by the day to be maintained why I’m SOOOO glad I got out of California over a decade ago.

    For those of you in California who are already gun owners and who have liberal family members there who DON’T know this: DON’T TELL THEM UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!

  • [1] September 30, 2014 at 5:26pm

    “His final act could be the begining of ours”.

    BEFORE that happens, IF it happens, there are TENS OF MILLIONS of us armed patriots who will give Obama and his cabal the fight of their lives first!

    And if things come to THAT: well, see my 4:37pm post above as to how it’s likely to end for OBAMA.

  • September 30, 2014 at 5:05pm

    And undoubtedly ONE of those people who knows little to nothing about the above as well is OBAMA. If it wasn’t in Saul Alisky’s book Rules For Radicals or The Communist Manifesto, it’s outside Obama’s knowledge base.

    Well, if he decides in his utter lack of discipline and maturity to get stupid, I think HE’LL join that list of those who launched massive upheavals in their country – and became a victim of the very monster they unleashed.

  • September 30, 2014 at 4:51pm

    And I contend that if the Republicans really roll on November 4 and take control of the Senate, especially if they do it by several seats to spare, that red-state governors will be in an even STRONGER position to openly defy Obama’s unconstitutional diktats as I’ve stated above than they are at present.

    Because I argue that if this happens, starting November 5, the only thing his fellow Democrats will be concerned with for the next two is saving 2016 for their sainted Hillary or whoever ELSE they run for president as well as saving the party as a whole – NOT saving Obama. So therefore, his fellow Democrats won’t be sticking their necks out for him anymore. Obama will be utterly alone and isolated and rejected and with NO political capital left anymore. And if he reacts to that isolation and rejection by lashing out against America in scorched-earth vengeance, I think he GREATLY increases the chances that his own fellow Democrats, again to save 2016 for their party, will throw him over the side and end his presidency well before 1/20/2017.

  • [2] September 30, 2014 at 4:45pm

    I’ve oft-stated on this site for MONTHS now that what needs to happen is that red-state governors, backed by their legislatures and law-enforcement communities, need to stand up to Obama’s unconstiuttional power grabs and executive orders and tell him in no uncertain terms that they will not abide by nor submit to nor obey nor enforce those diktats, and DARE Obama to just TRY to make them comply.

    And in the process, force Obama to either have to back down or to have to escalate. And if Obama chooses to escalate with force and violence: well, then, Civil War II begins.

    But frankly, I very much doubt Obama WOULD escalate that way. I offer as Exhibit A for this thesis what happened at the Bundy ranch in Nevada earlier this year. If Obama was ever looking for a PERFECT excuse to escalate with violence and bloodshed, he had his GOLDEN opportunity at the Bundy ranch when scores of armed citizens came out to stand in open defiance of the forces of the feds and in solidarity with Bundy. Obama COULD have ordered the forces of the feds to open fire on those citizens and then told the nation that all he was doing was putting down an armed insurrection. Instead, the feds backed down.

    I offer as Exhibit B for my thesis the fact that Obama hasn’t threatened force to stop TX Governor Rick Perry from sending National Guardsmen to the state’s border with Mexico, nor even to stop the activity of the militia groups who have flocked there to do border patrol.

    Responses (1) +
  • [6] September 30, 2014 at 4:37pm

    THIS ONE IS FOR YOU, LIBERTARIANSOCIALIST!

    Snowleopard, regarding your 4:16pm reply to SklylineToTheSea’s 4:10pm post:

    Obama probably SALIVATES at the thought of sparking Civil War II and undoubtedly thinks he can remain unscathed by, or escape, the monster he unleashes, but history is REPLETE with examples of men who thought this – and got the worst epiphanies of their lives as a result.

    Julius Caesar destroyed the Roman Republic – and was murdered in the Roman Senate as a result of it on March 15, 44 BC.

    The French Revolution that Robespierre engineered that brought chaos to France and sent thousands to the guillotine eventually sent HIM there as well.

    Czar Nicholas II brought upheaval to Russia – and wound up being shot with his family.

    Benito Mussolini, of course, brought ruin to Italy – and ended up being shot to death by partisans who then hung up his body alongside that of his mistress in a village square.

    Hitler, of course, destroyed HIS own country – and was forced to blow his own brains out rather than be captured and be brought to account for his crimes by his enemies.

    Nicolae Ceausescu touched off the Romanian Revolution on 12/16/1989 – and nine days later, on Christmas Day, got (along with his wife) probably the WORST Christmas present has EVER received: a firing squad.

    What do all of these examples have in common? They were men who LIVED by the sword – and wound up DYING by it.

    Responses (1) +
  • September 30, 2014 at 1:53pm

    @ Sargeking

    You replied at 12:17pm to CommonDecency’s 12:07pm post with: “The Feds will not protect you. No way, Jose. They are only protecting their jobs………….So, “To Protect and Serve” becomes ‘protect your career’. The pension is great!”

    And THAT’S one of the biggest reasons for my oft-stated assertion on this site that if Obama tries to use or gin up some “Reichstag fire” event to try to declare a national state of martial law, suspend Constitutional guarantees and future elections, and make himself president-for-life, and if he tries to use the civilian federal workforce as his bully boys to make this happen, at least the VAST majority of that workforce will NOT obey such orders.

    I have oft-argued that at least the vast majority of the civilian federal workforce is in it strictly to have an easy job where they don’t have to do much work and so they can retire at a relatively early age with a nice pension. They most certainly are NOT in it to potentially take a bullet for their employer and risk being laid in their graves before they ever see the first dime of that pension.

    I contend that we saw this dynamic in play at the Bundy ranch in Nevada this year when BLM and other civilian federal employees were confronted by scores of armed citizens standing in solidarity with Bundy. Why DIDN’T the “bravehearts” of the feds open fire in fearless contempt of death? I contend because they don’t think enough of Obama to take a BULLET for him.

  • September 30, 2014 at 10:16am

    @ ChiefGeorge

    I understand your arguments and can see your rationale for them, but I’m still sticking to my guns on this subject.

    If the feds try to go full Gestapo on America on Obama’s orders, my firm belief is that while what happened at the Bundy ranch may not happen EVERYWHERE in America, it will happen in a SUBSTANTIAL PORTION of America – far too large a portion for the feds to effectively contain or subdue.

    You stated, “Given the right propaganda, most will comply with orders”. The problem there is, by now, NOBODY believes ANYTHING Obama says anymore, and our people in uniform and our civilian law-enforcement in the wake of Ferguson now know only too well the depth of Obama’s hatred of them, so I think it will be a VERY tall order for Obama to manufacture that “right propaganda” that would induce them to commit the ultimate betrayal of their oaths.

    And FOREIGN troops? From WHERE?

    NATO? I think the peoples of Europe would raise holy hell if THEIR forces were sent to America for such a purpose, all the more so once the first body bags came back with the corpses of European soldiers who got killed in guerilla actions committed by American resistance fighters. Russia (as many have suggested)? Putin is not exactly a charter member of the Barack Obama Fan Club, and he well remembers the bloodletting Russian troops suffered in Afghanistan. The U.N.? The only activity THEIR “soldiers” have ever shown any aplomb for is RAPING THE LOCAL WOMEN!

  • September 29, 2014 at 5:19pm

    OOPS: correction needed

    The post of Thainn I referenced above was actually on THIS Blaze thread:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/29/another-teenage-mob-terrorizes-southern-town-memphis-is-going-to-burn-if-they-dont-control-these-children/

    Oh, and what I said about the military, about Obama PROBABLY being able to find a segment that WOULD obey orders and attack Americans if Obama ordered it simply because any body of armed men always seems to have a segment that will blindly obey ANY orders, is also applicable to the National Guard and civilian law-enforcement.

    But again, I’m VERY confident that among the National Guard and civilian law-enforcement of this country, the segment of those bodies that would obey such orders would be VERY small.

    ESPECIALLY, in the case of law enforcement, after the actions of the Obama administration in Ferguson, MO. Because Obama has now put on full frontal display in that situation to law-enforcement personnel that he considers them THE ENEMY and will sacrifice them at the drop of a hat, so I absolutely cannot see any more than a VERY small sliver of them actually being willing to turn on the American citizeny on Obama’s orders. For ANOTHER president who actually was someone that LEO’s could RESPECT, like George W. Bush, POSSIBLY, but DEFINITELY not for OBAMA.

  • September 29, 2014 at 5:10pm

    “Still think the military will not follow orders and attack Americans if Obama orders them too?”

    In point of fact, I happen to think this MORE THAN EVER.

    Just look at the myriad insults and abuses Obama has heaped upon our people in uniform just THIS year alone: the Taliban-Bergdahl swap, leaving Sgt. Tamoreesi to rot in a Mexican jail, and his recent “latte salute”.

    As a poster named Thainn posted earlier today on The Blaze thread regarding that Alton Nolen who beheaded that woman in Oklahoma, in responding to ChiefGeorge’s post about the possibility of Obama imposing martial law on this country, our soldiers have been ORDERED to applaud Obama when he makes appearances at military installations, because otherwise Obama would be greeted with stony silence, so any attempt by Obama to impose martial law will not involve our military.

    And I’ve known for many years of the situation involving the Bonus Marchers in 1932, to which I say; the America of 1932 very LITTLE resembles the America of 2014, so I seriously question the applicability of that analogy in 2014.

    To be sure, I have oft-posted on this site that history has shown that in ANY body of armed men, there always seems to be a segment that will obey ANY orders no matter HOW barbaric, so Obama likely COULD find a segment of our military (which likely would be almost exclusively black) which WOULD follow orders to attack Americans, but I’m very confident that segment would be VERY small.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] September 29, 2014 at 3:51pm

    If so many people in this country voted for Obama in 2012 out of fear of massive violence if Obama was defeated, then all I can say is: SHAME ON THEM!

    They simply refuse to look at the undeniable historical truth that EVIL CANNOT BE APPEASED! It must be OPPOSED AND DEFEATED!

    These people don’t “love their country” so much as they love their OWN LIVES AND COMFORT – and by appeasing evil, all they’re ensuring is that one day, something will happen that will make it impossible anymore to preserve their lives and that comfort by just continuing to kowtow to evil. As Jesus said, he who seeks to SAVE his life will LOSE it.

    If black America is on THAT much of a knife’s edge psychologically that it would start a race war just because it doesn’t like a result at the ballot box, then frankly, my contention is that that race war in this country is UNAVOIDABLE, because if blacks don’t initiate that war over THIS perceived slight or THAT perceived slight, sooner or later, they’ll just find something ELSE to vent about.

    And if such a conflagration is unavoidable, then frankly, the attitude of a lot of us is, the SOONER that it happens, the BETTER – while we conservatives still ENORMOUSLY outgun our opposition in this country, and while I’m STILL reasonably confident that in a SHTF situation, at least the vast majority of our military and civilian law-enforcement will be on the side of the decent citizenry and NOT on the side of the thugs and Marxists in DC.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] September 29, 2014 at 3:36pm

    A couple more things I wanted to say here.

    For one, please DON’T assume that the country is uniform.

    Last year, the people of Boston, in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, pretty well DID welcome being put under what was effectively a state of martial law, and in a SHTF situation, so would the denizens of many of our nation’s OTHER liberal-dominated enclaves like New York City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, St. Louis, and so forth. However, please don’t assume that TEXAS or for that matter many OTHER parts of “flyover country” are like Boston or NYC or such enclaves.

    Secondly, in keeping with that lack of uniformity, a SHTF situation is NOT going to affect all areas the same. In places like the Dakotas and Big Sky country, with such a small proportion of blacks and with so much of the population of THESE parts of the country being ARMED, we’re NOT going to see massive unrest THERE: the few blacks there are in these parts of the country will KNOW that to try to go Django on their fellow white denizens there will be a DEATH SENTENCE for many of them. So areas like this in the country will NOT take kindly to being put under lockdown just because blacks in our urban pestholes are committing mayhem on a massive scale.

    We did NOT see, for example, in the aftermath of the tornado that almost completely destroyed Greensburg, KS several years ago the kind of massive lawlessness that wracked New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

123 To page: Go