Thirty caliber clip

Just because someone knows most of the words doesn’t mean they can use them in a complete sentence that makes sense:

If a politician has no idea what they are talking about they have no business making law regarding that subject.

H/T Boyd K.


12 thoughts on “Thirty caliber clip

  1. O.M.G.
    i can’t even
    Like, wow.
    Must be new to the English language, and he failed his remedial course.

    Word salad, dude. Nuttin’ but word salad.
    Fire him, or impeach him.
    Or at least send him to an intro to firearms class and grammar school.

    • Send Kevin de Leon to a firearms class or grammar school?

      Hell no.
      After trial in the New Nuremburg Tribunal, sentence him to total forfeiture of his family estate and a life term in a Sulphur mine, and I’m being ‘generous’.
      No probation, no parole. He can serve his term right next to Diana DeGette of similar stupidity.

      a shorter version that cuts to the chase:

      These lard for brains won’t accept instruction. They’re too stupid to even realize they’re stupid. All they know to do is what the partei leadership tells them to do. They’re nothing but ‘reliable’ rubber stamps that also serve on vacuous committees that the more senior politicians deem beneath their dignity.

      • Gee, thanks. I’m dumber for watching that.
        She apparently doesn’t understand “reuse and recycle.” What a total moron; the only way that anyone could say those things with a straight face is if they are willingly uninformed.
        I wonder what she’d say if someone demonstrated reloading a magazine to her. Someone needs to do it, and film her reaction.

      • “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity”. Yes, but I believe in the case of these people, it has long ago become clear that stupidity is NOT the reason; evil intent is.

        • I believe that either the original, or someone later, ended that quote with: “But don’t discount malice.”

  2. If a politician has no idea what they are talking about they have no business making law regarding that subject.

    But then there would be very few laws … oh … OH!

  3. Would you rather have more clever, knowledgeable people violating your rights?

    I mean, if it’s a choice between the two, I’ll take the stupid, ignorant criminal over the intelligent, educated one. As an adversary, do you prefer the evil genius or the evil moron? Rather, it’d be more like the choice between ten million evil geniuses or ten million evil morons.

    Maybe you’re looking for better sport, for when it comes time to hunt them? You’re looking for more challenge?

    “If a politician has no idea what they are talking about they have no business making law regarding that subject.”
    Here you seem to be saying that if a corrupt scumbag, anti American politician DOES know what he’s talking about, then it is perfectly OK, and possibly even laudable, for HIM to violate our rights. We just don’t want our rights violated by the ignorant, is all.

    Maybe that’s why we have Princeton University then? So we can feel better, knowing that our rights are being violated by the more knowledgeable among us.

    • If a politician has no knowledge of the subject matter then resultant law will, almost without a doubt, be bad. If they are willing to learn there is a fair chance of there being good (or no) law on the subject. The “no idea, no business” line is a quick and dirty test that would eliminate the vast majority of law created each year. Which, while not perfection, is a very good start compared to what we have now.

      • Maybe, but if they’re willing to learn and embrace principles (as required by the U.S. Constitution), then their specific knowledge of technical matters becomes irrelevant.

        This highlights the difference between the Progressive (authoritarian) thinking verses liberty. Authoritarian thinking wants “experts” of some kind in charge of everyone else, whereas the libertarian mind says these things are none of the government’s business—We’ll govern ourselves as we please, and so long as we’re not violating the rights of others, it’s hands-off.

        Let’s try a short exercise;
        “What are your thoughts on the chemical effects of marijuana on the human body?”
        “None of my business, nor yours.”
        “OK; How should the Food and Drug Administration determine the best ways to improve the health and safety of the general public?”
        “There is no place for a ‘Food and Drug Administration’ in a free society.”
        “That’s insane. So then what should be done to make the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms more efficient?”
        “There’s no place in a free society for such an institution, and it should therefore be eliminated as soon as possible.”

        See? It’s simple. Next you’ll say that since we have these interferences, these institutions dedicated to the violation of human rights, we should be promoting ways to make them less egregious. So you consider them inevitable, and you want them to be more acceptable, and so then; how would that position be materially, significantly, ideologically different from the Progressive position? Has not our clarion call over the years been that the Republicans are much like the Democrats, that their main difference is they think they can do a better job of managing these programs?

        So after we’ve made all these anti-liberty, anti-American institutions more palatable and acceptable, and we’ve guaranteed that the violation of our rights is being managed by the smartest people among us, then do we get to talk about liberty?

        • To completely dismiss most of these agencies/oppressors is a non-starter at this point. We are going to have to do a lot of the work incrementally. When “the end of the world” doesn’t occur as their authority is halved, and halved again, and again, we can then say, “They have no place in a free society.”

  4. Kevin de Leon is an idiot. He is unfit to be a dog poop scooper. Yet, the morons in LA voted for him and they deserve his stupidity. The problem is that his stupidity flows over onto my rights here in Northern California. Perhaps the idea of splitting the state is sound. We would still have San Francisco, but it would eventually be claimed by the ocean with a level 10 quake.

    I hope he gets the punishment he richly deserves for denying me my rights. God will judge him harshly for the abuse of his position. With great power comes great responsibility (and if needed, great punishment).

  5. And why, you may ask, did Prop.63 pass? Because most of the Cali voters are as stupid as he is!

    Gene pool here needs a LOTTA cleaning!

Comments are closed.