Extreme liberals like Nancy Pelosi and my opponent, Jared Golden, want to take away your guns.
But I want to give you one!
October 23, 2019
Eric Brakey for Congress
[Via email from Paul K. who provided this link.
The gun he is talking about is an AR-15 worth about $1200.
Without reading the fine print one might assume he wishes to use tax money to give away guns. One can constitutionally justify this much more easily than taking them away but that isn’t what he is doing. If you sign up to donate $5.00 or more a month to his campaign he’ll enter you in a drawing for the gun.
I hope he wins and continues to tweak the noses of the gun grabbers.—Joe]
“One [can|can’t] constitutionally justify…”?
I can work it out by context, but you’re missing an important word. I could see the statement going either way, depending on which tack you’re taking in an argument.
Fixed. Along with two other errors.
“Extreme liberals…want to take away your guns.”
That’s a fairly good example of “word salad”. I mean; maybe his heart is in the right place (for who knows what dwells in the hearts of men?) but he certainly could use some instruction in clarity in the use of the language.
It is my thesis that someone who thinks clearly (and thus knows what he believes) will thus speak and write clearly, whereas sloppy or contradictory thinking (or flat out dishonesty) will manifest as sloppy and often contradictory speech.
Here, “liberal” is apparently intended to mean “anti-liberal” or “authoritarian”, but in that case he implies that only an “extreme” “liberal” is a problem. Presumably, those who are somewhat less “extremely” committed to authoritarianism, as compared to his arbitrary, personal and unstated definition of “extreme” would be acceptable. The quote, then, could be just as accurately represented as “Blah blah blah. Love me for pretending to be like you. Give me money.”
It is quintessential Republican-Speak. They will insinuate that they’re on your team, but they’ll never come right out and define, clearly and consistently, this insinuated team’s bedrock principles. When they subsequently fail to fight for those never-stated principles, you cannot accuse them of any specific violation thereof. Pressed hard enough to state their bedrock principles (any bedrock principles), they’ll eventually lash out in anger at (with undertones of concealed fear of) the very people they’re asking to support them.
So, he makes a pro-gun message while trolling the gun controllers with – basically – a gun raffle and you have a multi-paragraph dissertation castigating him for being a hypocrite even though you start out with a hash of The Shadow used as a disclaimer.
Motes and Logs, sir.
Motes – and – Logs.