All about life, liberty and the pursuit of hopeiness.
| NY Mag. | 0 | |
| Wash Wire | 0 | |
| NYT | 0 | |
| WaPo | Calif. insurer’s rate increases draw attention of federal government |
0 |
| Red State | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Spinsational:
"We were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values."
-Obama, explaining recent Democrat losses, 1/20/10
Velvet Lair- The sexiness of winning the battle of good versus evil January 26, 2010
- Ever wonder why? January 12, 2010
- The decision to bench Peyton Manning: Right or wrong? December 28, 2009
- Is my dad turning into a metrosexual? November 24, 2009
- My “Things To Do For Christmas” list November 23, 2009
Stupid bumper sticker of the day
Seen yesterday afternoon:
“Bare feet, not arms.”
Are we sure it’s illegal in the US for one car to not just lightly tap the bumper of another? 
RSS feed for comments on this post.
4 Responses to “Stupid bumper sticker of the day”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
I’ve asked the same question whenever I’ve seen those inane “War is not the answer” stickers.
“Bare” arms or is it “bear” arms is it feet or feat.Does it make any difference
What, they want to ban tank tops?
As much as the left has poisoned public discourse, I wonder at their insistence that guns be banned. They have eliminated courtesy and civility to the point that physical violence is the only next step (and in some small cases they have crossed that line).
So what do they expect if they escalate in a big way? Some people apprently thought that firebombing the political opposition was the way to go at the Republican Convention – do they really want to go there? Do they really want to make it a physical confrontation?
Well, maybe if they could get the rest of us without our guns, I suppose. Thus, their perennial wet dream of mobilizing the full force of the federal government, i.e. lots of big scary guys in black BDUs and armed with guns, to disarm all of us. I guess they think that once having turned that against one half of the population that it would never turn their way.
But even if they disarmed the rest of us, most of them wouldn’t have the stomach for going hand to hand. But then again, there’s that big scary government, with all the big scary guys and their big scary guns – they obviously think they’ll be riding that tiger.
And all of the above is just a long way for me to say, they want to disarm us because that’s a condition of satisfying their totalitarian fantasies. How else to explain their unconcern at the stated intent of violent jihadis, and their pants wetting terror of their fellow citizens?