Posts Tagged ‘Michael Savage banned from Britain’

The Plain Arrogance of Liberals Like Piers Morgan and Why Gun Banning Is Wrong

December 23, 2012 1 comment

On Twitter:

@piersmorgan “6600 Americans signed the petition to deport me – meaning 311,993,400 clearly want me. Thanks.”

And by that silly logic Piers, 311,993,400 clearly clearly want to have and keep fully automatic guns and see all children abused and turned into psychopathic narcissistic murderers. Only 14% of Americans use Twitter, 311,993,400 clearly aren’t following you. Thanks. Britain banned the narcissist Michael Savage for unpleasant political speech, why not Piers Morgan the pandering narcissist for his speaking out against the law of America?

Retweeted by Piers Morgan: (from “btannebaum”) “I want to sign a petition to end all White House Petitions”.

Meaning you’re an illogical contradictory hypocrite, Mr. “Silence the Mouth of the People, But Not Mine” Tannebaum. If King Hussein did his job there would be no need for any.

Anti-Christians are very good at punching themselves in the mouth or placing their fist right in front of their face so that slight stumble on a block of truth lands a punch.

Please sign the White House petition to send Piers Morgan to Mars (peace be upon him/pbuh)

Why Trying to Ban Gun Ownership or Ownership of High Capacity Magazines By Citizens Is Wrong and Unhelpful or: Why Piers Morgan’s Reasons for Attacking the 2nd Amendment Is Illogical:

1) The government is not perfect at all, nor the police, so to make out citizens who have “treated him incredibly well” as why to leave, is backwards, hypocritical and oblivious thinking.

2) It is because so many citizens are well armed that the federal government, on a whim can’t easily or can only inefficiently commit a war of tyranny or to try and subjugate all the citizens to conform to its will and desires (non-Christians often try to get people to obey their desires without saying what those desires are or indicating them to someone who is unfamiliar with them, which is nonsensical of non-Christians, for example the “I don’t know you therefore I don’t want to be your friend or help you” paradox: how then does the non-Christian get help when they want it or how did they make their friends?). Piers is also ignoring that governments and police misuse guns and their weapons by using them as a mere threat to enforce bad laws and grope or arrest you over their mere suspicions or hurt pride. So then Piers should be against the ownership of guns by even government, police and soldiers too.

3) Piers, rather than admit he is in error, is choosing to hold on to his pride. This is typical of non-Christians. “Pride comes before a fall.” – God

4) Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, therefore it’s certain type of people who should be “repealed” from owning guns. That is already in place, but Morgan is blaming a mom’s bad decision to leave her guns out (or in the exhaustion of caring for her son herself, perhaps rejecting to use a nanny to help out), which is then throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Imagine if someone made a bow and arrow so strong it could penetrate two deer at once, or go an extremely long distance. And say “a crazy” gets one and uses it to assassinate someone, should then that bow and arrow be banned so that the advantage for hunters who use it is lost, because a small many misused them?

Mark Levin, Ron Paul, and Donations to Israel and Egypt

December 29, 2011 2 comments

Ron Paul Speaks Out Against Meddling (and Donating Money) to Egypt

I was listening to the Mark Levin show, and a substitute host (Tom Marr) said that Ron Paul doesn’t complain when donations are given to Egypt (but does over Israel getting money from the U.S.) and the host implied that the Israelis get most of it via giving money to American Jewish citizens in department of defense jobs. He repeatedly asked the caller for the source of his claim that Ron Paul gets more donations from the military than any other presidential candidate, yet the host gave no source for his donation claim either. The caller however did cite the website, to which the host immediately responded with a “ahah” type tone saying “aaaaawh” and then said, “the web.” Yeah, and? Is there some better source Mr. “The (TV) Media Lies”? What’s it matter if it’s on the web or not, doesn’t Mark Levin have a website? Yes he does. Doesn’t he teach through it? Yes he does. Further, yesterday, Mark Simone, a hateful liar, cited that Ron Paul “for ten years” made racist statements. No liar, there were a handful of arguments spread throughout the years mixed in to many more statements that weren’t racist. Mark seemed to be twisting that Ron Paul or others argued that these statements were made “ten years ago.” The host right now is using a logical fallacy to claim that because “tons of them out there” (racists) support Ron Paul, that therefore Ron Paul must be bad. So if racists voted for McCain or whites over Obama does that mean that McCain and all the other white presidential candidates were racist too? This is conservatism: arbitrary arguments and using conniving cheap shots when threatened, just like liberals do. Hypocrites. Further, that stupid people support Ron Paul, or illogical people support him, is evidence of? What? In other words: is it a surprise that stupid people don’t check the facts and support the wrong people? Isn’t that what conservatives accuse liberals of doing? But again, arbitrariness: if it’s racists, and if your opponent is winning or threatening your power, forget that liberals or stupid people do stupid things, just change your tune to a sour note and say they are always clear-minded enough to recognize any like-minded person (which is not true as history repeatedly has shown through the repeated failure of pagan governments befriending and supporting people that turned out to be their enemies).

Concerning Ron not speaking against donating to Egypt, false: In fact, the host said near time of his “Ron Paul didn’t complain about donations to Egypt” statement, that Hosni Mubarak “was a bad guy, but he was our bad guy.” He said this because of Ron Paul’s policy to NOT intervene in the affairs of MUSLIM nations and to get our bases out of foreign countries like Germany due to not being able to AFFORD IT, AND, perhaps deceptively, because he knew Ron Paul was against arming Muslim dictators which would ENDANGER Israel, as Ron points out on that Youtube link. It’s Ron’s desire to withdraw troops and money from foreign lands that Mark Levin (a Jew, keep that in mind because it can be considered evidence of bias, and keep in mind that I am also Jew, biologically at least half), Mark Simone, and Catholic conservative propagandist and radio show host Shawn Hannity (and maybe Rush Limbaugh), are always complaining about concerning Ron Paul. Michael Savage also recently claimed that RP hates Jews and supports terrorists (good job ruining the last dregs of your reputation Michael Bean). Michele Bachmann also has attacked Ron Paul’s position on the military (and federal donations to foreigners?) as suicidal in her presidential campaign. Something to note is that very recently a top spokesperson for Michele Bachmann withdrew his support for her campaign and is now giving it to Ron Paul. As far back as January 31st! 2011 Ron Paul spoke out against meddling in the affairs of countries like Egypt: Ron Paul on Egypt: U.S. Meddling Leads to Unintended Consequences So, these conservative hosts contradict themselves and are lying.

Concerning Iran: at least, or only one Ron Paul supporter attacked me on my position on attacking Iran. There was a stupid person on a pro Ron Paul Youtube video who made the stupid remark, “Why can’t Iran have nukes? They’re surrounded by them” or something like that, which I said was stupid because Iran has a violent government that oppresses it’s people, which I likened to beating or killing your wife, or family, I said something like that. So, I believe Iran’s government and military should be attacked if they don’t change their stance on attacking Israel or not. But, I also believe Iran should be prayed for, and for an attack on them to not be necessary, for them to be at peace.

Tom? also claimed that Ron Paul said that Martin Luther King seduced black children. Tom then said, “oh yeah, he’s really going to get the black vote.” Even if Ron had said that, so what? It makes no point. And are blacks too stupid to investigate a comment like that? Martin Luther King is known for having been an adulterer, so he was unfaithful and allowed himself to be seduced. That’s a little evidence that he wasn’t someone to simply trust outright. The FBI even tried to blackmail him with the evidence that had on his adultery, but failed. Further, he was a worldly type Christian, NOT saved, and preached a worldly version of Christianity, one that appealed to blacks most I’d imagine. So to say that he (spiritually seduced) black children wouldn’t be wrong. If there was evil sexual implication behind that statement, I don’t know, but not knowing him to be a homosexual or not, have no opinion on that and it’s not a big concern to me, because that was long ago in the past, and there’s plenty of evidence he preached a false “social gospel” which is enough to disregard him as a worthy teacher of the Bible, someone who can be trusted with God’s word.

Related Information:
Ron Paul Ron Paul gives a ‘green light’ to an Israeli attack on Iran in self-defense
12/29/2011: Ron Paul says to Hareetz, Israel has a right to defend herself and QUESTIONS how giving 12 billion to her enemies HELPS her (Tom Marr: you lied about Ron Paul).
‘Racist newsletter’ timeline: What Ron Paul has said

Related Information:
Ron Paul’s Political Positions

Categories: Conservatism, Ron Paul Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,