Quote of the day—Your Liberal Nightmare @0bviouslyTruth

It’s the utmost portrayal of fear and inadequacy. It’s compensation. Penis too small, need gun. Scared of black people, need gun. Can’t take a punch- need gun. Your turn. Tell me reasons why it isn’t weak, and you need to carry one. Don’t cite this video, it’s obviously personal.

Your Liberal Nightmare @0bviouslyTruth
Tweeted on March 12, 2021
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

When you have no principled argument, no real world data to make a practicality justification, and no SCOTUS decisions to make a legal argument you resort to what you know best. Today’s Markley’s law Monday winner demonstrates how it is done with insults based on a delusional reality.—Joe]


18 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Your Liberal Nightmare @0bviouslyTruth

  1. It’s like the wrestling with a pig in the mud example…

    Nothing to be gained and neither side is going to change or modify their position.

    Jeff B.

    • Thank you. And I’d love to see Captain Obvious try to punch my wife.
      The only thing that wouldn’t be over in a flash is the tinnitus.

    • That’s a reality these people can’t comprehend: The fastest-growing demographic of new gun owners is women, and has been for some time.

      So the “penis too small” and “can’t take a punch” ad hominem attacks break down and fail with that demographic, but grade-school-level insults is all they have; instead of stopping and finding a better argument, expect them to double down.

      • The other fast growing demographic is blacks, which is probably the reason they are so worried. Just like Teddy “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy back in 1968.

  2. You know what else no one needs?

    A high-capacity assault Twitter account. Mimeographed newsletters ought to be more than adequate.

    • Mimeograph? You’re so liberal.

      Everyone knows the the First Amendment guarantees only the freedom of use of The Press: a hand cranked screw type press with moveable type, one page pressed at a time. Oh, and your speech may be amplified only by a conical speaking trumpet. If it was good enough for Ben Franklin, it’s good enough for you.


      • Rapid-fire microagressions, broadcast to the world as fast as the user can type! Won’t someone please think of the intellectual chilldren!

  3. Got to love it when your enemies are that afraid of you. And he thinks we need to explain ourselves to him? Because, BFYTW, isn’t it Obvious?

  4. I will guarantee that the “Can’t take a punch crowd” learned all they know about fighting from the TV, and have never taken a blow in any fight that involved real adults and real world situations.

    One punch can, and has, killed. One punch can destroy the orbit of the eye and leave you blind. And when the punches start falling, it usually ends with feet to the head and you on the ground.

    Not to mention in the real world, broken bottles and glasses, knives and god knows what else.

    I have always wondered if those folks would ever volunteer to show us how to take a punch or three. I would happily turn up and show them. No liability and no assault charges to be brought, and all medical bills and life altering damage on them.

    Idiots all

    • Sounds like a great time to say “I accept your terms. Appear at a place of public record, where you will be given one (1) punch, without warning. This will be done in a jurisdiction where mutual combat is legal, and your appearance will constitute consent. If you can take it, I will fully accept that you do not need a gun, ever.”

      • He would obviously call the police on you if you weren’t wearing a mask in the middle of nowhere.
        You just heard all the punch Jr. has. And the worst punch he ever took was the pronoun I just used on him.
        Just thank god you don’t have to listen to all the excuses for not being able to take up your offer!

  5. “Can’t take a punch”?

    Where is it written that to be a good citizen you have to be able to take a punch?

    And where is it written that being part of the unorganized militia means being able to take a punch? As opposed, say, to bearing arms?


  6. The proper response would go something like this;
    Your arguments are irrelevant. It’s unlawful to infringe upon, chill, or otherwise threaten, the rights of another. Try it and you’re under arrest.

    Without actually backing that up with lawful arrests and convictions however, we’re down to these shouting matches, which invariably become pushing matches, and then a punching, clubbing, stabbing and shooting match.

    When the law of the land (the constitution) remains unenforced, chaos will ensue.

    It’s exactly as simple as that. With the unwillingness of our legal system to make the appropriate arrests, we’re down to two choices: Capitulating with the criminals (chaos), or shouting and fighting (chaos).

    So here we are, and here we’ll remain until the perpetrators are arrested, tried, convicted and properly sentenced in the courts. I see no point in complaining about it now, but as we all, on both sides, know perfectly well, the legal system is corrupt, and so there’s no legal solution in sight.

    “No justice, no peace!” they say. It’s a goal for the left (Rome), not a mere warning. And they will achieve it. Their strategy, and motto, is Ordo Ab Chao (their kind of authoritarian “order” [absolute power] out of chaos).

    You might say that the political process is the answer, but you’d be dead wrong. So long as legislators can get away with violating their Oaths, there’s no solution. This is like being in the middle of an intense, and growing, armed robbery spree, while “trying to solve” the problem ONLY by means which never include actual justice— Physically resisting, or arresting and prosecuting the robbers is absolutely out of the question. All we have at our disposal is to try talking them out of it, or convincing them that it would be in the best interest of their communities to stop committing armed robbery, at a time when they’re making money hand over fist and having the time of their lives! Well then, what would you expect to happen under that circumstance?

    When it comes to violations of our “supreme law of the land”, that’s exactly what we have. Face that first, admit it, know it, understand it, communicate it and make it widely understood, and only then would we have any chance of turning it around. Otherwise you’re facing a strong, proud and growing leviathan, and you have naught but a pea-shooter with which to fight it.

    We as a people have taken the option of lawful justice (for the main perpetrators; our “public servants”) off the table, and should expect nothing less than what we’re about to get as the result; mass destruction. Again; think Lord of the Flies only with adults playing the roles of the children and having weapons of every kind, including whole armies, at their disposal. That’s us.

    But we have ‘the perfect law of liberty” on our side. As thoughout all of history, all we ever had to do was pick it up and run with it. Martin Luther understood this, as did Sampson, but today it’s forgotten, or shunned, maligned and rejected, even by the Lutherans!

    • Nah, the proper response to this one (at least in real life) is “shut up and go away before I punch you in the face.

      “You can take it.”

  7. I enjoy the ‘you gotta be able to take a punch’ philosophy.

    Do women have to be able to ‘take a sexual assault’? Men too, for that matter.

    The idea that you have to accept criminal acts against yourself is the stupidest thing ever.

    Yeah, it’s nice that you can take a punch, only because that gives you an opportunity to retaliate.

Comments are closed.