Posted on Sep 15, 2016
Kentucky governor uses violent metaphors to describe Hillary Clinton presidency
3.45K
19
27
5
4
1
Just...I have no words.
Some may attempt to justify his speech by saying "he was only speaking metaphorically" but that is irrelevant. Some people will still try to follow your example and use what you said as the excuse to do it.
Some may attempt to justify his speech by saying "he was only speaking metaphorically" but that is irrelevant. Some people will still try to follow your example and use what you said as the excuse to do it.
Kentucky governor uses violent metaphors to describe Hillary Clinton presidency
Posted from edition.cnn.com
Hillary Clinton
Election 2016
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
4
4
0
Interesting, I envisioned something very different from reading the title and your lead in. While I may not agree wholeheartedly with his choice of words, compared to the personal attacks, name calling and such of some, this seems mild in comparison.
The part about the the blood that may be shed is interesting. You see, when I look at the degree of carelessness required to make this email crap a possibility, that is what I envision. That degree of carelessness, the lack of regard for the kind of information that means we as a nation succeed or fail, live or die is truly scary.
I will not have to serve under her if she were to win. However, my children will, a lot of my friends will. I value your lives too much to not take this seriously.
The part about the the blood that may be shed is interesting. You see, when I look at the degree of carelessness required to make this email crap a possibility, that is what I envision. That degree of carelessness, the lack of regard for the kind of information that means we as a nation succeed or fail, live or die is truly scary.
I will not have to serve under her if she were to win. However, my children will, a lot of my friends will. I value your lives too much to not take this seriously.
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
Well, when the presidential candidate of the democrat party calls people on the other side of the aisle deplorable and irredeemable as well as sexists, racists, homophobic, islamophobic etc. etc. etc. It is fair to ask or consider how she might treat people she views so poorly.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
SPC Kevin Ford > You might recall it was the threat and application of force from the founders that created the Republic in the first place. Throwing off tyranny isn't some sort of ancient concepts relegated to history only. From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Founders, in your estimation then, must be a bunch of yahoos.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Founders, in your estimation then, must be a bunch of yahoos.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
Cpl Jeff N. - The tyranny we were complaining about was a lack of representation, not that our neighbors voted for representation we don't like.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
SPC Kevin Ford Tyranny is tyranny. When government (elected or not) attempts to take away unalienable rights it is tyranny. The concern was always the government because tyrannical government is easy to get. It is easy to get because people are so flawed and prone to be seduced by power and some people will try to give away unalienable rights to the government. The are unalienable because the do not come from man/people/government. We are endowed by our Creator with them.
Many of the colonist supported the British government. As a matter of fact, most colonists supported the crown. It is not about popularity.
Many of the colonist supported the British government. As a matter of fact, most colonists supported the crown. It is not about popularity.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
Cpl Jeff N. - What inalienable rights are we talking about here? The right to have our side win an election? The right only to have elected officials enact laws we agree with? I'm having an issue understanding exactly what rights are being violated or at risk.
This is the problem with all the toxic political rhetoric that has been floating around. The interpretation of what our rights are has been floating around since our nation's inception. Except for one notable "incident" we have been able to move forward as a society. There is nothing really notable politically that is happening with our rights right now other than perhaps some extreme gerymandering and a lack of privacy, but what has changed is how we receive and consume information. We now tend to receive and consume information we already agree with, extreme confirmation bias. That's leading to the view that people who politically disagree with us are not just wrong, but destroying the republic. That won't lead anywhere good.
This is the problem with all the toxic political rhetoric that has been floating around. The interpretation of what our rights are has been floating around since our nation's inception. Except for one notable "incident" we have been able to move forward as a society. There is nothing really notable politically that is happening with our rights right now other than perhaps some extreme gerymandering and a lack of privacy, but what has changed is how we receive and consume information. We now tend to receive and consume information we already agree with, extreme confirmation bias. That's leading to the view that people who politically disagree with us are not just wrong, but destroying the republic. That won't lead anywhere good.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google