Skip to main content

View Diary: NRA responds to ad outrage: Obama children ad not about Obama children (124 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Before we go there (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I want to see what the NRA and the vitriol that they threw at President clinton, though.

    I think that they would have thrown this type of vitriol at any President who proposed something like this; race has very little to do with it.

    •  Well for one they certainly did (0+ / 0-)

      throw vitriol at Clinton. He was going to usher in the New World Order. Images on the backs of signs were a certain way to lead good conservatives into concentration camps placed in Idaho and Alaska, or something.

      However . . . not once did I hear that it was inappropriate for Chelsea to have Secret Service protection.

      liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

      by RockyMtnLib on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:14:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here you go (0+ / 0-)

        Granted, this was in the immediate post-presidency phase

        Most recently, on Jan. 27, they threw a snit-fit over Chelsea wanting an extension of her Secret Service protection, calling it "unprecedented" and "yet another tawdry aspect to the Clintons' not-so-final exit."

        Now, we perhaps know why she wanted the protection. It seems that a National Review writer would like to see her dead.

        "I hate Chelsea Clintion," John Derbyshire declares in his Feb. 15 column. He admits at first that he doesn't have a clear reason for doing so, but one certainly emerges: She's a Clinton -- more specifically, "the vile genetic inheritance of Bill and Hillary Clinton."

        And the only genuine solution for dealing with this situation, Derbyshire writes, is death:

        "Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past — I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble — recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an "enemy of the people". The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, "clan liability". In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished "to the ninth degree": that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site