We Can Line All Those Guys Up and Shoot ’em

Quote of the Day

We can line all those guys up and shoot ’em. And they clearly don’t understand the way the world works.

Phillip Lowcock 
October 9, 2024

Via a post on X from Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras.

Violence. It is their language. It is what they think they can do. It is what they do.

See also:

I find it “interesting” that in the video he clearly says, “… we can…”. But in the msn.com, Newsweek, cjonline.com, and ksnt.com articles they “quote” him as saying, “…we could…”. Other articles don’t provide any quotes at all. They just say “Lowcock made some remarks about some men.”

What bias in the mainstream media?

Perhaps you really can’t hate the media enough.

Share

16 thoughts on “We Can Line All Those Guys Up and Shoot ’em

  1. I have voted for a woman for president – Jo Jorgenson in 2020.

    I won’t vote for Kamala Harris.

  2. I’m sure he’s going to suit-up and get right out there on the great misogynist round-up/gun down.
    Men and women are not smarter/dumber. Were created to think in different ways is all.
    Woman in short-term nurturing. Men in long-term defense. It works quit well in balancing the family unit. And has for the entire human history.
    But the meat of this situation is Harris is a communist idiot. And this professor is just telling us what we always knew of communist educational facilities.
    Let’s hope he can actually shoot better than he thinks. (Wouldn’t want to get shot in the kneecap when he’s supposed to be aiming for your chest!)
    His real problem is not only being more ignorant than Harris, He’s white. I’m surprised they haven’t shot him themselves.
    Certain things the commies don’t want said out loud. Even though they dream it, talk in closed circles, and fantasize it all the time.
    He’s just saying what Harris/Walz would love to give the order done.
    I guess we can say, Got the talk’in part done yet?

  3. A couple thoughts come to mind about this.

    First, like Chris implied above, there’s a BIG difference between “men who won’t vote for women for President” and “men who won’t vote for Kamala Harris for President”. The “good professor” is basically saying we should vote for a candidate based on their plumbing instead of their policies and ideologies — and anyone who doesn’t “vote the vagina” should be shot.

    Second, regarding: They just say “Lowcock made some remarks about some men.” Some men, as in “not all men”? So the MSM is allowed to say “not all men”, when those of us who’ve said (correctly) that “not all men are rapists” got ridiculed, chastised, and cancelled?

    Finally, LawDog put it it best back in July, no matter how much you hate journalists and the media, you don’t hate them nearly enough.

    • As you say, there is a big difference between voting for women for President and voting for Ms Harris. I remember William F. Buckley and his remark about how he’d rather be governed by the first 635 names in the Boston Telephone directory than the 635 people we have in the US Congress.

      • Your right about the difference in voting for a woman pres. and voting for the “whore of Babylon”.
        But 635 from Boston vs congress?
        That seems like a distinction without a difference to me.
        Probably ain’t anyone there that could make good beans anymore, let alone good government.

  4. The depressing thing is that he was “put on leave” (I’m guessing paid leave) rather than summarily fired and reported to the police for making violent threats, as should have been done.

    • He has the right to say anything he likes. As he’s just saying what they all want to do anyway.
      He needs to be made to defend what he said or get what’s missing. The old-school ass-kicking he truly needs. Every male in the class should have drug him outside a schooled him.
      Fist and boot style.
      After all, communists all know how well violence works. That’s why they do it every chance they get. Were the ones that need to get with the program here.

      • Yes, he has the right to say what he wants — and face the consequences. Those consequences should include, as a minimum, being fired.
        For one thing, if the university does not do so, it would cause sane observers to assume that they support what this character said.

    • Most public sector employers HAVE to go to paid leave first. Supreme Court of the US has ruled that the right to continued employment is constrained by the Due Process clause of the Constitution.

      —The term stems from Loudermill v. Cleveland Board of Education, in which the United States Supreme Court held that non-probationary civil servants had a property right to continued employment and such employment could not be denied to employees unless they were given an opportunity to hear and respond to the charges against them prior to being deprived of continued employment. —-

      • Faculty are not civil servants. Their employment protections comes either from university rules about “academic freedom” or union contracts. Both of these are self-inflicted by the university. And this guy appears to be a lecturer who has no protection at all. Admin leave is appropriate for just long enough to determine the truth of the allegation, then poof.

  5. The left no longer even TRIES to hide what they think, believe or intend to do.
    And why should they. They never suffer any meaningful consequences. Till that reality changes nothing improves for normal society. And odds this liberal POS loses his job…..close to zero. He’ll get a paid vacation and perhaps a reassignment till things blow over.

    • Gone? How far? From where? In what way? With how much extreme prejudice, as the movies and novels used to say?
      The details here, which Leviathan won’t say, are key.

Comments are closed.