Thursday, July 30, 2009

god. guns. guts. and american pickup trucks.

CNN interview of the owner of an auto dealer in rural Missiouri who's running a promotion where you get a free AK-47 with every truck purchase. It's really amusing how he's able to turn the tables and get the CNN anchor so flustered and fumbling around for words.

The funniest quotes:

When asked why he included God in his motto:
"You don't have a problem with God do you?"

When asked what would Jesus do when it came to carrying a gun:
"Uh, no they didn't have guns back then, but I think he'd carry a sword if he needed it. But he was so powerful he didn't need any weapon."


26 comments:

Matt W. said...

This is hilarious.

Deborah said...

Haha - that guy was so good. He had a comeback for everything. Loved it.

Victoria said...

TO bad more don't have this guys brains & shall we say guts.

injesusiamsaved said...

AMEN! Jesus is indeed powerful wordwise..

MR3navy said...

A normal down to earth American male. Its amazing how hard it is for public opinion pollers to find guys like this. I have been around a lot of guns in my days, and I have never seen one do anything mean or wicked. They just sit there. I would love to have one to show some person that decided to come into my home un-anounced.
D.J.Dull American (down with socialism)

Anonymous said...

The dealership owner said he didn't know the facts of the situation where that couple got killed but he inserted his opinion into the situation anyways. Obama says the same thing and is merely offering an opinion as this gentleman did on an issue and Obama gets lambasted.

Anonymous said...

That's what I'm talking about!!A true American who understands what our forefathers meant and what our rights are.I bet CNN doesn't want to interview him again. Ha!Ha!I know the female commentator sure doesn't. Good job and well done.

Anonymous said...

the reason why is that Obama is a socialist....and true Americans don't like those that support socialism

Lang Wiseman said...

To the Anonymous commenter:

The differences between this guy's comments and Obama are huge (obviously).

One is the President and leader of the free world!! The other is a random guy from rural America representing only himself and his own opinions.

Second, Obama has an entire regime of communication folks and handlers to get the story straight for him. Clearly, this regular-Joe did not.

Third, Obama's comments were targeted to a specific delicate situation that applied only to that situation. And he got it wrong!! The other was a more general reference to violence generally, and the reference to that one incident was merely representative -- not necessarily specific. Any incident of home invasion would do.

Nice try -- but no dice.

Anonymous said...

I don't know agree with you that Obama got it wrong. He simply said that a man shouldn't be arrested in his own home for not committing a crime. I wouldn't think conservatives would be outraged that the government can come into your house and arrest you for exercising your rights. I think about how the Brits searched the settlers houses in the colonies for no reason other than they wanted to. Then we fought some war, and one of the reasons was because we didn't want Brits coming in our houses and taking us to jail and searching our houses for no reason. I know how much conservatives detest the bill of rights but I never knew it was to this degree!! lol

Lang Wiseman said...

Conservatives and Republicans aren't against the Bill of Rights. That's ludicrous. And I'm not the one who said that Obama was wrong -- he himself did!! He jumped to conclusions without first having the facts.

Anonymous said...

Way to go she was sooo stumped. Thanks for standing for God & Jesus! And, our right to bear arms. If a man has a sword you don't try to fight him with a stick. If he has an automatic weapon a handgun won't really suffice. I hope you sell a ton of cars because I suspect (given this interview), you're an honest salesman as well.

Anonymous said...

Almost all of America commented on the arrest without knowing all of the facts. What does that make us? Wrong as well?

Lang Wiseman said...

No. What that makes us is NOT the President of the United States whose every word and deed is scrutinized and publicized, and who has access to information that we do not have, and who should know better than to jump to conclusions in a public forum where he knows everyone is listening.

Anonymous said...

I think I have to side with the anonymous guy on this one. Lang, you are right that the President has the ability to speak to an audience and his words can reach everyone. He was asked to give his opinion and he spoke candidly about what he felt had happened based on the facts that we did know. We know the police shouldn't arrest anyone in their house when he didn't commit a crime. I'm sure that's covered on day 1 at the police academy. I know me and my friends debated the issue and why shouldn't the President weigh in? I would want my President to speak out on what was a perceived injustice as well. As it turns out, the cop was caught in several lies on his police report. Who knows what else he lied about. Maybe the President's words can shed light on the abuse of police power. I think we can all benefit from that.

Robert said...

I'd like to know why the President is involved in this anyway! If Gates had been white and protested being arrested, the President would never have been involved. Since Obama has been in office, I have heard more blacks screaming RACISM over every little thing. (Senator Boxer incident) I think all of this shows us that all those scandals and rumors spread during the months prior to the election may have some basis to them.

And, HURRAH to the car dealer. I am sick of the government trying to completely run our lives. I know we are armed and ready of anyone ever tries to break in our home.

Anonymous said...

Robert, that is mere speculation on your part about if Gates had been white. We DO know that racism does exist. So if a black person screams racism we should not listen? If that were the case the Civil Rights bill of 1964 would not have been passed. As a white person, I couldn't tell a black person with a straight face that their claim isn't valid b/c they've been on the receiving end of racism for generations, and they probably recognize racism better than I do. Racism is more than burning a cross in a lawn, or calling someone the "n word." I would say its more covert these days. Look at the e-mail generated by the Boston cop, but he says he's not a racist?

Anonymous said...

I would say that the President should not have made a comment on a sistuation that he did not have the facts. I do not think if a crime of breaking and entering is reported and the police go to the home and find someone they obviously did not know, were stupid to request some information, and that in a normal situation most homeowners would be glad to give the info and support the ones who are protecting their property. Why he was arrested was because of the obvious hostility to the cops who may or may not included a black officer.

Anonymous said...

hey Anonymous, take your comments and shove em. You anti-american regurgitating mass of chicken intestines.

Lang Wiseman said...

Please, please kids! Let's play nice...

Matt W. said...

Conservatives detest the Bill of Rights? The Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights. I like it just fine. Common decency and common sense dictate that you don't berate a cop, period. Much less one who is called to your house to protect your property.

Furthermore, this is hardly a parallel to redcoats searching houses. Given that someone called the police to report a break-in, Crowley had probable cause to think that the guy in the house had ill intent. The bottom line is this: Gates over-reaction caused the scene and the ensuing debacle, media frenzy, and the current raging debate. A calm and normal response from Gates would have prevented all of this. So, the question I have been asking myself is this: Was Gates truly upset by Crowley's actions or was he trying to start a battle he thought he could easily win to prove some point? I don't know the answer to that, but either one puts Gates in the wrong, in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Fact check

1. There was not a report of a burglary, the caller said she believed the gentleman trying to get into the residence lived at the house but looks like he forgot his key.

2. Gates had a bronchial infection and is never heard on the 911 tape being "loud and tumultuous"

3. Officer Crowley made up a conversation with the 911 caller so he could further back up his story. He submitted a false police report. Accounts of these situations should be accurate and its obvious this one was not.

4. When Officer Crowley identifies Gates as the resident, and you see there is actually no burglary in progress, and Crowley admits to understanding that there was no burglary, why is he still there?

5. I now see that conservatives believe that it is perfectly within the law for a police officer to arrest a man in his own home for not committing a crime.

hkgonra said...

Where are you getting these " facts " from ?
I have followed this and this is the first I have heard of them.

Anonymous said...

news articles, the 911 caller herself, and I heard the actual 911 tapes. Funny that the police department stands behind the report even though it has found out to be false. I would suggest listening and reading to individuals who don't have an agenda. For example, I wouldn't solely listen to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, or Al Sharpton's radio show if I wanted to get unbiased information. Here is an unbiased article with that address several discrepancies for you to read, unless you consider the NY Times propoganda lol. There's also a link to the actual 911 call on the left hand side of the article.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/us/28gates.html

hkgonra said...

The NYtimes in general is just to the left of Keith Olberman.
John Stossel is the only reporter I can think of that tries to be fair, cover an issue and get to the truth.

Anonymous said...

The article only reported on the facts. There was no opinion inserted into the article whatsoever. I hope you are not insinuating that the NY Times made up the discrepancies in order to sell a newspaper. The only person who seems to have been caught in a lie in this situation is the arresting officer.