arma virumque cano (et alia)
I see a father having a good day with his son. From his accent, I'd say he's from the southern part of this country, but so? On what grounds do you call him ignorant? He speaks knowledgeably about the subject at hand.By the way, you conclude this is Obama hate why?
The target is in the likeness of the president. The guy calls it Barry.If teaching a kid that young that guns and shooting are fun isn't ignorant enough for you, then jokingly shooting the president certainly is. I don't expect you to agree with any of that because you're right in lock-step with Commandant La Pierre, don't give an inch.
The video won't play any more, but the target's name was not Barry, and it looks like a zombie to me. You're the one calling it a likeness of the president. Besides, what part of Barack Hussein Obama is Barry?And yes, guns and shooting are fun. I'm sorry that you've failed to experience that.
I think Mike thought it looked like the Prez because of the ears. Of course, if one of us made a remark about the resemblance we'd be called a racist.
Which is to say, the company doesn't call the target Barry. Perhaps this father just doesn't like guys with that name.
Or, maybe you always try to defend the gun-nut lunatics.T., the company who produces the target admitted it was a likeness of the president. Haven't you read the stories of their pulling the product from the NRA convention?
Mike,I hadn't heard those news stories, so I used Google--search parameters: . Here's two stories from the top of the results:http://thegrio.com/2013/05/07/nra-bans-zombie-target-that-looked-like-obama/http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/06/obama-the-zombie-just-a-coincidence-says-the-company/One from the Grio, and one from MSNBC, so you can't accuse me of getting a biased story from Fox. Per the Grio, the company didn't pull the target, the NRA did because they were scared of a mountain being made of a molehill. I agree with what you're going to say--that's paranoia on their part. Clearly the left would NEVER spot a resemblance and make a big deal about it (even though there was all that buzz about whether "The Bible" was targeting Obama since the actor playing Satan looked a little bit like him).Next, the MSNBC piece quotes the company as saying that the target was NOT intended to look like the president. So much for your statement that they admitted that it was a likeness of him.I'll be sitting on the edge of my seat, waiting for you to acknowledge that you lied, or at least misspoke, about the company in question.
You can sit back in your seat now. I jumped to the wrong conclusion. I thought their pulling the targets from the convention was an admission that they purposely made them to look like Obama. Naturally they denied it, I should have known.
Excuse me, but just for clarity--was that intended to be an admission that you were wrong? Because it was kinda weak and half-assed, but I think I got the gist of it.
Just for clarity, I was wrong to say the company admitted it. I jumped to the wrong conclusion about that. I was wrong, totally wrong about that.Clear enough now?
It is. And I'll apologize for being a bit of a gloating ass when I wrote that. I posted it before I saw the admission on the Puerto Rico post, and not knowing your browser problem was the cause of your stubbornness.Regretted it when I saw the cause of the mistaken holding out on the other argument, but couldn't delete the post. Feel free to delete it and the following if you want.