So are you going to run for President?
No.
Folks in a lot of places still do not take Elizabeth Warren at her word but seem to be waiting for the Shermanesque Statement, however definitive, not worried that if she does, the city of Atlanta (aka
the ATL) might have to be destroyed, since Erick, sonofanErick believes that the terrorists have won there and gotten past pants held up with safety pins.
The term derives from the Sherman pledge, a remark made by American Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman when he was being considered as a possible Republican candidate for the presidential election of 1884. He declined, saying, "I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected." Thirteen years prior, he had similarly asserted, "I hereby state, and mean all that I say, that I never have been and never will be a candidate for President; that if nominated by either party, I should peremptorily decline; and even if unanimously elected I should decline to serve." These statements are often abbreviated as "If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve.
Yet the usual reactionary idiots like The Daily Cellar and its Cheeto-stained denizens (sweatpants held up with bobby, rather than safety pins) seem to think that Elizabeth Warren could burn
the ATL down with a single firearm and in the case of Charlie Hebdo, it does seem that pens have that same potential. Particularly for Erick, sonofanErick, who somehow isn't clear on what causes bigotry, although it would seem like the Catholic League is a fungo away from entering the Council of Trent in the League Division Championship Series.
Speech is a female dog in a democracy and only thin-skinned authoritarians come out of the still flammable woodwork to extinguish it.
Near the end of her new autobiography, “A Fighting Chance,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren gives readers a glimpse into her extensive knowledge of guns.
As the chapter about her Senate run against then-Sen. Scott Brown, the Massachusetts Democrat complains about losing weight due to the harried schedule. Her solution? A bobby pin to hold her pants up.
“I started hitching them in back with a big safety pin,” the gun-control advocate writes on page 257. “Every day brought lots of picture taking, and many times, as we’d line up to smile for the camera with our arms looped behind each other’s backs, I’d feel someone’s hand hit the thick bulge. I wondered if anyone speculated whether I was wearing a holster or carrying a wad of money back there.”
Erick sonofanErick presenting a portrait to Rick Perry, who does pack a pistol
A publisher published something that offended. It mocked, it offended, and it showed the fallacy of a religion. It angered.
So the terrorists decided they needed to publicly destroy and ruin the publisher in a way that would not only make that destruction a public spectacle, but do it so spectacularly that others would think twice before publishing or saying anything similar.
The terrorist wants to sow fear. The destruction of an individual is not just meant to be a tool of vengeance, but a tool of instruction. It shows others what will happen to them if they dare do the same. It is generates self-regulating peer pressure. Others, fearing the fall out, will being to self-police and self-regulate. They will silence others on behalf of the terrorists. Out of fear, they will drive the ideas from the public square and society will make them off limits.
It is not because the ideas are bad, but because the ideas offend a group that can destroy and tear down.
So when a publisher published something that mocked and offended a group prone to offense at such things, something had to happen.
The terrorists did what had to be done to publicly destroy and ruin the offender.
So they demanded the Mayor of Atlanta fire the Chief of the Fire Department for daring to write that his first duty was to “glory God” and that any sex outside of heterosexual marriage was a sin.
And the terrorists won in Atlanta.
http://www.erickontheradio.com/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Supporters said that the publication of the cartoons was a legitimate exercise of free speech regardless of the validity of the expression, that it was important to openly discuss Islam without fear or that the cartoons made important points about topical issues. The Danish tradition of relatively high tolerance for freedom of speech became a focus of some attention. The controversy ignited a debate about the limits of freedom of expression in all societies, religious tolerance and the relationship of Muslim minorities with their broader societies in the West, and relations between the Islamic World in general and the West. Critics of the cartoons described them as Islamophobic, racist, or baiting and blasphemous to Muslims, possibly intended to humiliate a Danish minority. Others saw them as a manifestation of ignorance about the history of Western imperialism, double standards, and stereotyping.
In the light of the growing.... movement – a grouping of disillusioned citizens, neo-Nazis and football hooligans who oppose... immigration and have been backed by the anti-immigration party.... – the debate.... since the attacks...has been particularly nervous.
In the light of the growing Pegida movement – a grouping of disillusioned citizens, neo-Nazis and football hooligans who oppose Muslim immigration and have been backed by the anti-immigration party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) – the debate in Germany since the attacks in the French capital has been particularly nervous.
'bagger with Japanese pickup truck