
Guns & Guard Dogs
5K posts

Guns & Guard Dogs
@GunsnGuardDogs
Because guns are political. Staying safe, free, and sane in increasingly authoritarian, post-constitutional times. Pattern watcher. Counter-revolutionary.


Illegal immigrants don’t vote you fucking dumbass

83-year-old veteran randomly shoved onto NYC subway tracks dies from injuries, illegal migrant charged with murder trib.al/jSRje4o

Andy - This article is the perfect example of why a lot of people don’t trust you and think that you are a secret Trump hater. 1. You begin by thanking people for supporting you. That’s fine. 2. You bring up Assange and “wacky” Roger Stone. Why call Roger Stone “wacky”? Stone is wacky. But why say it? It’s not the strongest of derogatory language but it’s stronger language than you use anywhere else in the piece when discussing what Mueller, Obama, and Clinton did. On one hand, we have a wacky guy. On the other side we have a group that tore the nation apart over a hoax. And the only place that you can insert an adjective is when discussing Stone! Right away my “bias radar” is activated and I think “Oh no! Andy’s doing it again!” 3. Then you go off the rails! You end the paragraph with “Stone was doing what the Clinton campaign did.” No he was not! You create a false equivalence out of two things that are wildly different. Stone was doing what everyone in politics did. He was looking for dirt on his opponent. Unsavory but typical. What Clinton was doing did was using the power of her position to unleash the greatest political dirty trick of all time. Obama, Comey, Brennan, and the lot of them all knew it was fake. It was such a big deal that they even had a meeting in the White House to discuss it. Susan Rice was so concerned that she had to write a memo to herself to protect herself. The Clinton crew then used the wheels of power to hobble the next President of the Inited States. It was far more than a hoax. And it wasn’t opposition research. It was a lie and they knew it. But how do you describe it? You say “Stone was doing what the Clinton campaign did.” Shame on you. And it’s a point in support of why I think you’re biased. 3. You then give a reasonably fair but uninspiring account of what happened with Assange and some other misdeeds of the Mueller probe. But you never import the magnitude of their ill deeds. You never place it in context. It just comes off like more of the typical dirty tricks like what “whacky” Roger Stone. Why do you avoid addressing magnitude of the sin? The Mueller team was doing horrible things and you mention the acts without discussing the incredible level of their misdeeds. And you can’t feign ignorance. You’re a former prosecutor. 4. Then you do it again. As you wrap up your story and get to the conclusion, you say: “To be clear, it's entirely possible that U.S. intelligence agencies were correct in assessing that Russia meddled in the 2016 election.” Why add this? This was the greatest political dirty tricks of all time. The investigation was massive. If there was any actual proof that Russia interfered in the election, they would have released it. They didn’t have any proof. It’s just speculation. But instead of concluding by summarizing the wild misdeeds of Mueller and team, you choose to put life back into the hoax. You choose to say Russia might have interfered. By doing this you distract from the confirmed bad acts to a speculative one that damages Trump. 5. Then you finish with an unemotional last two sentences that simply point out that Mueller didn’t prove his case. This is another example of why you come across as biased and not balanced. There was no equivalence between the actions of Roger Stone and the Clinton crew. The level of misdeed of the Clinton crew is top ten all time in American politics. You start with an implicit jab at Trump and end with a not so implicit jab at Trump. In the middle you do a reasonable recitation of the facts without ever giving the reader the context of the magnitude.

ISLAMIFICATION: German schools are banning music to make Islamic migrants more comfortable. No more Beethovens…




Trump on the death of Robert Mueller: “Good, I’m glad he’s dead.”













Bob Mueller was one of the finest directors in the history of the FBI, transforming the bureau after 9/11 and saving countless lives. But it was his relentless commitment to the rule of law and his unwavering belief in our bedrock values that made him one of the most respected public servants of our time. Michelle and I send our condolences to Bob’s family, and everyone who knew and admired him.



Chicago train rider: "I'ma kiII whites. I got out 2 days ago. I finna kiIl for real."



