From The Rightly-Guided One


Above and below.


11 responses to “From The Rightly-Guided One

  1. There doesn’t seem to be any shortages of battle fields and enemy for us. Oh, I just looked at my, “Murphy’s Rules for Combat”, and No. 16 says, If you’re short of everything except enemy, you are in combat. I wonder what THAT means?………….

  2. Sooooo…setting aside the fact that Clinton’s a murdering psycopath, the AB doctrine and Trumps rather obvious character flaws, you have decided you must not “Refuse to Choose” in ’16. By casting a vote you choose to ratify the idea that ANY of these psycho’s give a flying shit about God & country, your country, the people you call friends. You also vote in favor of the idea that if somehow miraculously they did give a hoot about your children’s future, they could somehow work within the existing morally bankrupt system to affect lasting change that would matter. They could not, at least not without receiving a free open air limo ride in Dallas. It’s just that simple.

    For the love of God please consider not ratifying the process with your drone check mark? Not a single one of these scum speak for me, not one. In a just nation there would be a shortage of available lamp posts by now.

    • Gene Urtel

      For a few election cycles now I have heard the following comments on this blog site:

      (1) “It does not matter which of the two parties you would vote for; the result always will be the same. Nothing ever changes”; or
      (2) “I refuse to participate in a choiceless election”; or
      (3) “Vote for the lesser of two evils! Hold your nose and vote!” or even
      (4) “Vote for the worst candidate, and let this civil war get started”?

      So what should be done, gentlemen? How should you vote?

      Let me ask you this: How many of you would like to make your vote actually mean something; to vote for a principle; that is, to vote for a presidential candidate that will govern according to the United States Constitution and has promised to do so, not according to some empty campaign pledge simply trotted out in an election year, but one made in good faith by a man of character who means it and will not be influenced to the contrary by special interest groups?

      Who could that be?
      For instance, there was a gentleman nominated at the convention in Salt Lake City on 16 April as the candidate of the Constitution Party. His name is Darrel Castle, a practicing Christian and a retired Marine (see him at http://www.castlereport).

      Obviously, the benefits of voting for him will be these: It will encourage him and other like-minded people to continue their constitutional stand. It will demonstrate to the political opposition a growing grassroots commitment to a constitutional government. It also will alert the increasing number of frustrated citizens to a positive alternative party.

      Just the same, I am curious. I would like to invite any sound reasoning as to why it actually would be a bad idea to vote for such a constitutionally-minded candidate.

      • Jimmy the Saint

        “Just the same, I am curious. I would like to invite any sound reasoning as to why it actually would be a bad idea to vote for such a constitutionally-minded candidate.”

        If you participate, you ratify the result – that’s always been the problem.

    • Amen

  3. Uh, hit back. Special snowflakes will wither and fall to the ground.

    Nothing over the top, don’t pull your Glock, just a sharp punch to the throat so they can’t scream and move on.

    More to follow no doubt.

  4. Ha you should of photo shopped Ferangi ears on “The One.”

  5. Tom:
    Trump wants to keep out mexicans and muslims. Pretty much every person and group I hate, hates him. He sounds like the perfect candidate to me.

    Not voting does absolutely nothing, they will still tax you whether you make your empty gesture or don’t. If both candidates sucked, I might agree with you. But one of them is clearly far better. Hillary has already accepted a down payment for starting WW3 in the ME over a pipeline, while Trump has sounded more isolationist. Trump’s list of Sup Ct is conservative heaven, Hillary winning will virtually guarantee a generation of anti-gun decisions.

    If you are whining because he is a bully, then the fact that you are whining instead of making cogent arguments shows why you are so scared of him. Man up, get over the terrors of the playground. Republicans have been simpering losers for decades, and we finally get someone who will actually fight and some of us (are you “us”?) start crying that our candidate doesn’t sip his tea with extended pinkie.

  6. When are these pussies going to to hit back?

    • Jimmy the Saint

      They’re the Western Right. They’re talking about circulating a draft e-mail to propose forming an exploratory group to debate having a pre-meeting discussion to consider a non-binding resolution to deliberate raising the possibility of agreeing to ponder the issue of the propriety of maybe, under some as yet undetermined circumstances, resorting to violence, to be held during the interval between the pistol at the back of their heads discharging and their bodies toppling into the pits. And this time, they fuckin’ mean business!

  7. Alfred E. Neuman

    Reblogged this on ETC., ETC., & ETC..