Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Disturbing New On Line Video Game

You are really not going to believe this one, folks!
The left just won't let the violence thing go!

Almost, to the day when Jimmy Hoffa pronounce at a Detroit union rally that feature a campaign speech by Obama, that we need to 'take these son-o-bitches out', we NOW have a release of a very disturbing online video game.

A new on line video game that challenges you to "Slaughter Tea Party zombies" like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and with bonus features to destroy Fox News figures like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Bret Hume, etc.

This is what the sick, F*&KEN left sees as entertainment???
Well, the folks at StarvingEyes Advergaming apparently think it is and they'd like to share their latest creation with the world. The game is called "Tea Party Zombies Must Die"


Watch it here: 

http://teapartyzombiesmustdie.com/

This is beon acceptable, even beon psycho!
And whats going to happen when all the violent rhetoric becomes REAL?
Will the left shrug it off, like they have in the past with the violent talk we all have witnessed?

And will it spark retaliation on the street of America, if it happens in real life?

12 comments:

Silverfiddle said...

Imagine if a conservative made a game like that with liberal targets?

Where's Obama and his calls for civility?

Chris said...

The left have been trying to dehumanize us for a long time now. It is the same tactic the Nazi's used to dehumanize the Jews.

Lisa said...

It's all if it's about doing harm to conservatives.

Josiah said...

Isn't it ironic that none of the people "Zombified" bar Michelle Bachman and Glenn Beck fifty percent of the time, even represent any of the beliefs held by the Original Tea Party. I get more nauseous listening to Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity pretending to care about small government and freedom of the individual than listening to bleeding heart liberals like Chris Matthews and Contessa Brewer rattle off their true positions on big government. Who's with me?

Mark Adams said...

Silver, Obama blowing hot air right now in congress. LOL!
Chris, we are the enemy to them. Anything that will satisfy their violence craving, right?
Lisa, I am sure if it was legal, they would have fire the first shot already.
Josiah. yeah it's ironic that the "zombies" truly don't represent the Original Tea Party most of the time. Unlike the real life folks who represent the original Tea Party 100% of the time...

I'll take the right leaning independent O'Reilly and Hannity any day over the blowhard Mathews any time!

Chris said...

Well said Mark. They do seem to have "violent cravings".

Josiah said...

Mark, I won't "settle" for anything but a person speaking the constitution and voting and talking in line with the constitution. I quit going for the "lesser of two evils" a long time ago and I believe if everyone did America would be the great nation we once were. There's nothing more that I dislike than a liar and when I listen to these fake conservatives like Hannity and OReilly and Romney and Perry and you name it talking small government and constitution and then out of the other side of their mouth back policies and Undeclared unconstitutional wars that are causing this nation to become bankrupt and less safe by the minute it makes me sick. We need not forget how the Tea Party was originally birthed in 2007 and more importantly in 1773.

Mark Adams said...

Josiah, you're choice to quit going for the lesser of two evils, you'll not find any one who is 100% a strict constitutionalist, so with that said, if you wish Obama out and refuse to vote the lesser, Obama's one vote closer to 4 more years of violating the constitution 100% of the time.

The "2" wars were granted authority do to so by congress, it's not required of congress to declare war when a threat is eminent to this nation, the founders left that up to the president to do so and the President to seek approval to use force, from congress. Congress is not required to declare war when it has been declared on us by attack or eminent threat.

You're sounding like a Ron Paul supporter to me. Good man domestically, dangerous on foreign policy matters.

The Tea Party org folks (btw founded in 2004) are a little to late to the party as it failed to promote itself in its mission of which is "ready in a moment of time to call national awareness to any issue which challenges the security, sovereignty or domestic tranquility of our Beloved Nation the United States of America."

OR maybe you're not a Paul supporter, but liberal in your thinking. Which Paul is on foreign policy matters.

Josiah said...

Mark, you stand in the shadows of men like OReilly and Hannity and Romney and Perry who do the Constitution lip service but look the other way and make excuses when it's not conveinent to them. The Constitution tells the government what it can do, anything not listed means that they're not allowed to do it. Nowhere in the document does it state that the Executive Branch can declare war. Congress has transferred the war power to the executive branch in these instances without consideration of an amendment to the constitution. You my friend are the one with a "liberal" way of thinking here. In 2007 John McCain was asked if we would be in Iraq for 50 years, he said "make it a hundred" So let me get this right Mark, your conservative in your thinking and agree with spending 7 Billion a month on a war, that we now know had nothing to do with 9/11. Continuing this logic in 100 years we will have spent over 8 trillion dollars. If this is what conservative now means count me out. Your "conservative" notions will eventually help usher in a day when China and other nations around the world reject our dollar as their reserve currency because it's worthless and the Great Depression pales in comparison to what ensues. It's a package deal Mark you can't be for freedom and liberty and constitution here at home and when it comes to foreign policy turn your head.

I almost didn't respond to this when you said the Tea Party started in 2004. But I understand everyone makes mistakes.

Mark Adams said...

Josiah, I don't stand in anyones shadow except my ancestors, who were truly good men.

I never said the Executive branch has the authority to "declare" war. And it still doesn't have that authority.

The constitution grants the power to "declare" war by congress (Art 1; Sec 8).
And you're confusing a declaration of war vs the power granted to congress to enact a law "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" all under Art 1; Sec 8, which, by it's enacting such law, gives the President the authority to enter in to "military action" when it is an eminent threat, but that the President must with in 90 day present good reason, for which the congress can except or reject.

Bush went to congress for both wars before engaging in to military action, to get congresses approval. Which they granted.

" In 2007 John McCain was asked if we would be in Iraq for 50 years, he said "make it a hundred" So let me get this right Mark, your conservative in your thinking and agree with spending 7 Billion a month on a war"

LOL so you're trying to put John McCain's words in to my mouth?

" that we now know had nothing to do with 9/11"
What a liberal quote if I have ever heard one.
What part of "War On Terror" do you not understand.
It's not just a war on AQ or the Taliban. It's a global campaign to rid the world of this ideology. The same ideology that has attacked us on 9-11 and in the 1st WTC attack. The same ideology that has attacked us in Beirut. The same ideology that has attacked us at a German Disco, etc etc....

Nothing in the Constitution forbids this nation from defending our interest abroad, our citizens and our men and woman in our armed forces who are stationed and live throughout the world based on treaties we have entered in to.
Paul seem to think so. But he is dead wrong and dangerous to defending ourselves.

So stow the "you can't be for freedom and liberty and constitution here at home and when it comes to foreign policy turn your head"
Not turning my head, I except it as the founders intended it to be.
"Provide for the Common Defense".

You'd be wise to heed your first thought of 'almost didn't respond'
Yes, people do make mistake as I did say the Tea Party org was founded in 2004... by their own admission.
https://www.facebook.com/teapartyorg?sk=info

Josiah said...

Mark, I'm glad you are from good stock. First of all, you are confused as to how the framers of our Constitution and the Founders of our Nation saw the powers of the President. Hamilton, who on some issues was one of the biggest central government backers,even realized that the President must yield to Congressional authority.

"The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect, his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces.; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies – all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.”

The founders didn't imagine that Congress would one day be weak and ineffective and yield their power to declare war to the Executive Branch.

"It's a global campaign to rid the world of this ideology"

I don't have to put any words in your mouth your words speak for themselves. You would do whatever it takes and spend whatever it takes, no matter the consequences, to "rid the world of this ideology"

Mark, we stood against the Soviets and watched their ideology crumble around them by maintaining our strength and DEFENSE not by invading them, bombing their innocent civilians, and spending ourselves into oblivion doing it and at the same time calling it "Conservative".

We will never defeat their ideology, Mark, it has always been around and always will. To think you can exterminate something expecially through the barrel of a gun is idiocy. What we can do is be the free and strong Republic we once were, with the strongest military, strongest currency, and strongest economy so we can defend ourselves and not worry that when China stops our borrowing we can't even afford boots for our soldiers, let alone planes and missiles.

Mark Adams said...

I agree that the President must yield to Congressional authority. Bush seeked and got Congressional approval. Obama has not on Libya.

"The founders didn't imagine that Congress would one day be weak and ineffective and yield their power to declare war to the Executive Branch."
Now one has yield their power to the Executive Branch.
But I got news for you, 3 founders didn't seek a declaration war from congress but where grant authority to wag war. Those were Quasi-War waged by John Adams. First Barbary War waged by Jefferson and the Second Barbary War, waged by Madison.

"by maintaining our strength and DEFENSE not by invading them, bombing their innocent civilians, and spending ourselves into oblivion doing it and at the same time calling it "Conservative".
The Russians never attacked nor threat to attack. As for innocent civilians... We never targeted ANY civilians anywhere at ANY time. Thats the liberals and Ron Paul excuse to justify their position.

I never said exterminate this ideology, I meant defeat it. You don't have to exterminate it to defeat it. You have to weaken it to the point that it can't sustain itself. Reagan did this with the USSR.

I agree with the "be the free and strong Republic we once were, with the strongest military, strongest currency, and strongest economy so we can defend ourselves and not worry that when China stops our borrowing we can't even afford boots for our soldiers, let alone planes and missiles."
If this President (and future Presidents) would use our taxes "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" we can get there.