For Love Or Money

America’s left has jabbered on for decades about one form of “class warfare” (by many names, but the same idea) or another.    And on the issue of gun control, they have one – but they are the patricians, trying to keep the plucky plebeians down.

The passion gap is immense.  The intensity with with Real Americans defend their Second Amendment rights is something Big Left, in its’ infinitely dubious wisdom, mocks and taunts but can’t seem to beat for love, or…

…well, they’re certainly pouring money into it.

Remember all those “spontaneous student activists” that spontaneously popped up moments  spontaneous after the Parkland shooting spontaneous?

They apparently need more spontaneous activists fast, in time for the elections:

My guess – the first round of activists got new video games.

10 thoughts on “For Love Or Money

  1. You should post an ad, Mitch.

    “Calling all high school students who care passionately about a living wage. We’ll pay $15 an hour, not a measly $12.”

  2. following up on Joe’s point
    photoshop the ad changing the dollar amount to $15/hr and push the ad to as many student distribution points as possible. Many of the students who apply will feel cheated when they are informed they will be making $3/less and will drop out, others will take the job viscerally resenting their employer and create a disaffected workforce with diminished effectiveness.

    Or Protect MN will have to pony up the extra change$, limiting their overall effectiveness.
    If you can’t stop them outright you can sabotage their operations and personnel.

  3. They’re seeking “highly articulate” people to work in parts unknown for a total of $72/week, but when you add the hour it takes to get to and from Excelsior, you’re probably talking about 8 hours of time spent for an actual wage of $9/hour or so. We are talking McDonald’s wages.

    In other words, they’re seeking people who are smart enough to talk well, but who do not understand math at all. Sounds like a lot of gun control activists I know.

  4. is this legal? I mean I know the right doesnt have to pay on the rare occassion people of a conservative bent feel the need to protest. But doing this hass always seemed fishy to me.

  5. Some pictures and eyewitnesses of people with wads of cash paying protesters to disrupt the Kavanaugh hearings.

    Senator Fluff must be so proud of herself and her juvenile colleagues for their “brave resistance” and causing Judge Kavanuagh’s family to leave the hearings. This proves, yet again, that Democrats don’t care about anyone, much less children, if they stand in their way. Pathetic losers!

  6. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 09.06.18 : The Other McCain

  7. The Dems believe that they will take congress (both houses) in November. Their fever-dream is that once they have congress, they will impeach Trump. They are afraid that Kavanaugh will be the fifth vote on the SC that will stop impeachment and possibly give Trump the power to insulate himself from congressional investigation and censure.
    But they have failed (again). The Red state Dems are falling in line to confirm Kavanaugh. This likely means that Schumer knows that he has not peeled off an R senators to vote against confirmation, and he has given the okay to Red state Dems to vote confirm.
    It all was vanity.

  8. I am going by the scribbling of the hard-left fever swamp, e.g. the Democrat base, bikebubba.
    -The Dem congress impeaches on the grounds of obstruction of justice. They are not going to get anything on ‘Russian Collusion’ at this late date. Well, maybe on Hillary, but Mueller is not so inclined. So the house impeaches based on obstruction of justice. The SC says that whatever Trump is supposed to have done to obstruct justice is okey-dokey, part of the power of the Executive that cannot be second-guessed by congress (like firing Comey, for example).
    As I said, this is fever swamp Left stuff, but this is the Dem base, so it is who Schumer, Booker, Feinstein, et al. are playing to. This show is being put on for their sake, not the GOP, not the independents, not the non-voter.
    The case for congressional impeachment of Trump reminds me a lot of the case against Johnson after the Civil War. Congress passed a law limiting the power of the executive (the tenure act). Johnson ignored the law as an unconstitutional assumption by congress of presidential power. The SC of 1867 refused to rule on the constitutionality of the tenure act, so congress impeached.
    But the Johnson impeachment couldn’t happen to day. All political power was in the hands of the Radical Republicans after the Civil War. The Dems only wish that they were that powerful.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.