Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Buzzfeed)   You remember that Anti-Obama painter? Well, he's at it again, and here is his latest masterpiece   (buzzfeed.com) divider line 649
    More: Stupid, President Obama, art world, Thomas Kinkade, Jon McNaughton, U.S. Constitution, Sean Hannity  
•       •       •

14103 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jun 2012 at 6:00 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



649 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-24 05:25:15 PM  

St_Francis_P: AzDownboy: This picture is an example that earnestness is the complete opposite of irony

Yes; he understands the importance of being earnest, but lacks any talent to express it.


Sees what you did:
perpenduum.com
 
2012-06-24 05:27:38 PM  

HeartBurnKid: No Such Agency: ActualFarkal:
RulerOfNone: Political tripe aside, this guy is a rather decent artist.

Ooh! Ooh! You know who ELSE was a rather decent artist?

/Godwinrar
//I has it

Well, except I wouldn't characterize Hitler's work as "rather decent". I'd call it technically competent but dull, lacking in any emotional or evocative component whatsoever. At most it portrays a mawkish idealized sentimentality about his country that would mirror later Nazi attitudes.

[iliketowastemytime.com image 640x417]

So what you're saying is, we should never elect Thomas Kinkade to higher office.


Awww, and I have a bunch of Zombie Kinkade for president pins.

/he's the painter of lights at the end of the tunnel
 
2012-06-24 05:39:51 PM  

GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01:

GeneralJim: And, the Second Amendment... Just how does ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" mean that the government needs to closely regulate guns?

Let me guess, you think background checks are unconstitutional right?


Of course not, dumbass. Convicted felons should never be able to carry weapons, or even vote, if you ask me. Heck, even admitted felons, like Bill Clinton.


So, you admit that the 2nd amendment does not confer an absolute right.
 
2012-06-24 05:42:13 PM  
GeneralJim: Well, here's your problem right here... You simply think that nobody who is not a mental clone of your own grotesquely limited viewpoint has nothing to offer. Hey, dumbass, EVERY time you grow, mentally, it will be at the prompting of someone with different viewpoints. You're stunted.
green
And, dividing the walls in a room with a molding and making the upper and lower parts different colors is "graphic art." I don't think it rises to the level of art. Not that graphic art CANNOT rise to the level of actual art. Let me just grab a simple image at random... ah, here we go:
it's
[s3.amazonaws.com image 640x497]
Now, that's art... It's not just a colored high-contrast photo. And, before you ask, photographs can be art, but are not necessarily art. Don't MAKE me give you examples...

always
Remove your red-colored glasses ('cause if you don't, it will be invisible) to see something that I also do not consider art, for the same reasons, but which will not trigger your knee-jerk leftist worldview:
greeen!
[i48.tinypic.com image 320x320]


Oh my. You're like a one-man show. You barely need anyone else here. I'm in awe of your metafictitious post-meta-recursive™ performance and retract nearly everything I've said to you thus far.
 
2012-06-24 06:00:23 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: intelligent comment below: Oh great, another Fark Independent "Both sides are bad" troll

So disagreeing with leftism makes one a troll, and eveything one says "derp."

Ok. As long as I understand your logic, and your debate skills.

I will offer concrete facts to support my position, thankyouverymuch:

Estonia I

Estonia II

Estonia III

I wish I had another example than this one country, but unfortunately, everyone else is trying the same old Keynesian stuff which is not going to work. When another country decides to get a clue, I'll let you know. You won't listen, I imagine, but I'll still let you know.


So if you follow...as you call it...'leftism', does that make you a leftismist?

And if you base your magic spells on people who are 'leftismists' is that leftismisticysm?

And would that make you a leftismisticysmist?
 
2012-06-24 06:17:47 PM  

jcooli09: tony41454: jso2897

2012-06-23 10:18:27 PM
tony41454: I like it. Truth in oils.

Yeah - but you're f**ked up, and most people aren't like you.

Not as farked up as someone who would vote for an untested, untried, unvetted community organizer to run the United States. Now THAT'S farked up! And come this November you will see that most people ARE like me.

Your post made me chuckle.


I love how people chide Obama for being a community organizer (and I'm still waiting to hear why that's a negative) and then accuse him of being 'out of touch'.

It's usually the same people who say he's a secret Muslim who was influenced by a crazy Christian minister for 20 years.
 
2012-06-24 06:18:15 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: Greece and other countries have recieved massive external investment, also. So of course, they're all doing just as well as Estonia.


Do you really want to try to build an argument on that logic?
 
2012-06-24 06:31:26 PM  

ZipSplat: mrshowrules: I guess Top Secret clearances don't have any basic intelligence requirements.

/people with TS don't typically advertise it

I had a TS//SCI, I still maintain a Secret. It's not a big deal. There are entire forums for people with TS clearances to talk about job prospects, maintaining their clearance, etc. I put it on resumes that I send out into the ether for postings on craigslist.

It's really not a big deal.


But is it a big deal?
 
2012-06-24 06:32:03 PM  

vygramul: SouthernFriedYankee: The point is that the public sector does not create wealth, it consumes it.

Even supply-side economics says that government can do some things to positively influence GDP. Investing in infrastructure, education, and R&D are all things that improve GDP and are best done by government. This isn't to say a state school can ever be as good as a private school. UVA's Darden Business School, as great as it is, simply isn't going to be as good as the University of Chicago's Booth School. But everyone benefits from an entire public that is educated, but no private wealth has a vested interest in educating the public. So government creates the public school system.

While I agree in principal that we have things to do, I disagree with many of the specifics coming from the right.


'zactly. The right looks at the economy like "hey, the only part of a cow I like is the meat. Why do I have to pay for this animal to have such undesireable and unnecessary things as eyes, a tongue, teeth, a tail, skin, and the massive bundle of waste that is its internal organs? Can't we just get prime rib without all of this underlying support structure? Also, prime rib should be the same price as ground chuck. I don't want to punish deliciousness. And I'm going to oppose any regulations to prevent butchers and grocers from taking as much they want. They shouldn't have to abide by special rules just because they are in a much better position to make dibs on quality cuts. That's not the government's business. Also, they're my connection to good beef."

//The analogy started to stretch, but it felt good.
 
2012-06-24 06:48:08 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: I wish I had another example than this one country, but unfortunately, everyone else is trying the same old Keynesian stuff which is not going to work.


Yeah, that Keynesian stuff is pretty old, all right. As in, dates all the way back to the last third or so of Genesis. You know, the system that God inspired Joseph to advise Pharaoh to use to build up a surplus and infrastructure through involuntary taxation for Egypt during the seven years of plenty that Pharaoh dreamed about and Joseph interpreted, to not only last them through the seven years of famine that would follow according to the same dream, but enable them to profit mightily by selling food to other nations during said famine?

That is straight-up full-cycle "Keynesian stuff." You are right, though, that the version that all too many nations (including us) practice is not going to work, and the reason it doesn't is because we don't do the full cycle. Doing only ½ of the cycle is worse than doing none of it. It only works if you do the whole thing.
 
2012-06-24 07:05:03 PM  

COMALite J: That is straight-up full-cycle "Keynesian stuff." You are right, though, that the version that all too many nations (including us) practice is not going to work, and the reason it doesn't is because we don't do the full cycle. Doing only ½ of the cycle is worse than doing none of it. It only works if you do the whole thing.


I'm not sure why you think that. I understand why Krugman would say it wasn't big enough, but doing "half" shouldn't be worse than doing nothing.
 
2012-06-24 07:10:08 PM  
For the last time, everybody, he wasn't born in Keynesya!!
 
2012-06-24 07:16:44 PM  
This artist reminds me of, quite possibly, the greatest story ever done by The Onion.

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be
 
2012-06-24 07:21:27 PM  
I think it's fitting that the man holding the Constitution also has money in his hand. It represents the idea that money is speech and that our government is bought and paid by the 1%. I think those are principles we can all believe in.
 
2012-06-24 07:36:05 PM  

vygramul: COMALite J: That is straight-up full-cycle "Keynesian stuff." You are right, though, that the version that all too many nations (including us) practice is not going to work, and the reason it doesn't is because we don't do the full cycle. Doing only ½ of the cycle is worse than doing none of it. It only works if you do the whole thing.

I'm not sure why you think that. I understand why Krugman would say it wasn't big enough, but doing "half" shouldn't be worse than doing nothing.


Because we do the bit where you spend a bunch of money in lean times, but not the bit where you save up in times of plenty. And both sides do it; the only difference is what they spend it on (the Democrats spend it on social services, the Republicans spend it on military and corporate welfare).
 
2012-06-24 07:46:09 PM  

HeartBurnKid: vygramul: COMALite J: That is straight-up full-cycle "Keynesian stuff." You are right, though, that the version that all too many nations (including us) practice is not going to work, and the reason it doesn't is because we don't do the full cycle. Doing only ½ of the cycle is worse than doing none of it. It only works if you do the whole thing.

I'm not sure why you think that. I understand why Krugman would say it wasn't big enough, but doing "half" shouldn't be worse than doing nothing.

Because we do the bit where you spend a bunch of money in lean times, but not the bit where you save up in times of plenty. And both sides do it; the only difference is what they spend it on (the Democrats spend it on social services, the Republicans spend it on military and corporate welfare).


Oh, well, yes, I see what you mean. You're saying we don't do the full income-smoothing that Keynes calls for. Absolutely true.
 
2012-06-24 07:50:26 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: I don't know why Obama looks so frightened. Boris Becker isn't even an American. Who cares if he holds a copy of the Constitution?


I think he's just gained sentience and feels keenly the stain to his honor after being painted into that thing.

/Seppku should come next
//Seriously, I saw that and I'm still halfway laughing.
 
2012-06-24 07:54:03 PM  

vygramul: Oh, well, yes, I see what you mean. You're saying we don't do the full income-smoothing that Keynes calls for. Absolutely true.


Ayup. Keynesian economics in busts and Austrian economics in booms is quite possibly the worst iteration of any possible economic policy (within the context of liberal democratic politics, anyhow) that you could possibly conceive. I can't understand how anyone with the least, most elementary, fundamental understanding of economics can not call this B.S. out.
 
2012-06-24 07:57:35 PM  

GeneralJim: And, the Second Amendment... Just how does ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" mean that the government needs to closely regulate guns?



That's not what the 2nd Amendment says.

Why do you leave out the most important part?

A well regulated militia...
 
2012-06-24 08:05:26 PM  

mrshowrules: ZipSplat: mrshowrules: I guess Top Secret clearances don't have any basic intelligence requirements.

/people with TS don't typically advertise it

I had a TS//SCI, I still maintain a Secret. It's not a big deal. There are entire forums for people with TS clearances to talk about job prospects, maintaining their clearance, etc. I put it on resumes that I send out into the ether for postings on craigslist.

It's really not a big deal.

I wouldn't hire anyone advertising there TS clearance on their resume.



They're all applying for government contractor jobs, easy government handouts doing nothing computer tech jobs. Anyone who applies for a job not requiring TS does indeed deserve to stay unemployed. Monkeys in the military can easily get TS clearance.
 
2012-06-24 08:06:35 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: If we can significantly reduce government spending without doing so at the expense of the general public, we will see the economy become robust, and grow again. If we don't do this, we're going to limp along until the whole thing collaspes under its own weight.



Please back this economics claim up with citations and past history
 
2012-06-24 08:07:51 PM  

GeneralJim: Of course not, dumbass. Convicted felons should never be able to carry weapons, or even vote, if you ask me. Heck, even admitted felons, like Bill Clinton.



So it's okay to take away Constitutional rights from some people but not others? Interesting argument you have there, care to back this up with some section of the Constitution allowing such a practice?
 
2012-06-24 08:09:32 PM  

intelligent comment below: GeneralJim: And, the Second Amendment... Just how does ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" mean that the government needs to closely regulate guns?


That's not what the 2nd Amendment says.

Why do you leave out the most important part?

A well regulated militia...


Oh here we go again. Gun control is one of the big issues I have with the left in an otherwise agreeable relationship. Look, if you want to pass a Constitutional amendment to change the Second Amendment, do that. But you're trying to pretend that in the 1780's, immediately after the Revolutionary War period, that the authors of the Second Amendment intended that gun ownership be restricted to formal members of an organized militia, you are off your goddamn rocker and off into "WHARS THE BIRTH CERTIFKAT??? NOE TEH REAL WAN!!!!" realms of daftness.

The second amendment is saying, in contemporary terms, that militias are necessary, and therefore the right of people to keep and bear arms, clearly for the purposes of building a militia, will not be infringed.
 
2012-06-24 08:09:53 PM  

vygramul: Even supply-side economics says that government can do some things to positively influence GDP. Investing in infrastructure, education, and R&D are all things that improve GDP and are best done by government. This isn't to say a state school can ever be as good as a private school. UVA's Darden Business School, as great as it is, simply isn't going to be as good as the University of Chicago's Booth School. But everyone benefits from an entire public that is educated, but no private wealth has a vested interest in educating the public. So government creates the public school system.


I'm not one to advocate that government not do any such things. But the Federal government really has no reason to be involved in K-12 education. They're too far away to be in any way an efficient participant in the process. The state governments should only be minimally involved, for a lesser version of the same reason. If you don't like the way a school district is run, don't live there. If you find you must, work at the local level to change it. One of the strengths of a free market, limited government system is that it can harness an individual's self interest to serve the greater good; that doesn't only apply economically. The parent who works to improve the crappy school system benefits all the kids, not just their own. But it's a lot harder to correct problems that come out of bad DC policy than those which originate from local laws.

While I agree in principal that we have things to do, I disagree with many of the specifics coming from the right.

I do too, although probably not all of the same ones you do. As I've noted elsewhere:
Again, I come back to cutting the power of the government to be able to write endless regulations, and then carve out loopholes for the highest bidders. The more power the government has, the more able it is to advance the aims and agendas of the most ruthless among us. Anarchy does not work, but neither does collectivism. "Just enough power to provide an orderly and free society to as many as possible, and no more" is my stance on government in general.
 
2012-06-24 08:31:55 PM  

ZipSplat: Oh here we go again. Gun control is one of the big issues I have with the left in an otherwise agreeable relationship. Look, if you want to pass a Constitutional amendment to change the Second Amendment, do that. But you're trying to pretend that in the 1780's, immediately after the Revolutionary War period, that the authors of the Second Amendment intended that gun ownership be restricted to formal members of an organized militia, you are off your goddamn rocker and off into "WHARS THE BIRTH CERTIFKAT??? NOE TEH REAL WAN!!!!" realms of daftness.

The second amendment is saying, in contemporary terms, that militias are necessary, and therefore the right of people to keep and bear arms, clearly for the purposes of building a militia, will not be infringed.



Your knowledge of history is frightening. Seems like the hobby of liking guns has blinded you to the reality and history of the country.

I'm not making the argument guns shouldn't be legal, but the context in which the amendment was written was strictly to make sure state militia aged men would not be able to be disarmed by the federal government.

These people were part of the state militias that today make up the national guard and police forces.

Absolutely nothing to do with the idea the NRA drilled into gun nuts since birth how your hobby should be covered.
 
2012-06-24 08:38:56 PM  

AeAe: fusillade762: Who gave him that big wad of cash?

Billionaire Republicans? Citizens United ruling?


That's what I was thinking. The message to me seems to be that our nation's values (the Constitution) are for sale.
 
2012-06-24 08:44:16 PM  

intelligent comment below: but the context in which the amendment was written was


The context in which it was written is mostly irrelevant, or else the 4th amendment wouldn't apply to computer files.

This has been ruled on already by SCOTUS. The "Militia" bit isn't exclusionary (meaning that you don't have to be a member of a militia to bear arms).

Who summoned you, anyways?

i79.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-24 08:54:53 PM  

intelligent comment below: Your knowledge of history is frightening. Seems like the hobby of liking guns has blinded you to the reality and history of the country.

I'm not making the argument guns shouldn't be legal, but the context in which the amendment was written was strictly to make sure state militia aged men would not be able to be disarmed by the federal government.

These people were part of the state militias that today make up the national guard and police forces.

Absolutely nothing to do with the idea the NRA drilled into gun nuts since birth how your hobby should be covered.


Hyperbole tends to belie insecurity. My knowledge is less "frightening" than inconvenient for your position.

So you're saying that the intent of the Second Amendment could be paraphased as "The right of males between the ages of 15 and 65 to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Care to substantiate that?

Additionally, the National Guard does fill a militia role, but there is no reason here to infer that the militias that were coalesced into official State militias, and then later in 1903 into the National Guard, are the only militias which would be allowed to exist. In the period in which the second amendment was written, militias were grassroots. They weren't controlled by the Federal government or even the State government in the same way the current National Guard is (Please, PLEASE try to tell me that the National Guard is run by the states. Please try to tell me that.)
 
2012-06-24 09:05:42 PM  

Halli: Animatronik: Truth is, Obama is losing the constitutional challenges. Obama said a couple years ago that he couldnt offer amnesty to a million illegal immigrants because its against the law. Now he doesnt care, because when SCOTUS strikes it down, he scores big points with Latino voters in an election year. Even the liberal justices are going against him. Example: 9-0 decision against EEOC in a lawsuit attacking a church's employment practices.

Yeah that Hannity clip only showed half of what Obama was saying. FOX News tends to be dishonest like that.


vygramul: Animatronik: jcooli09: GeneralJim: vygramul:
...
Obama said a couple years ago that he couldn't offer amnesty to a million illegal immigrants because its against the law.

See, this is where FOXNews has you fooled. And even though I can prove it, it won't change your mind. Why? For the same reason God doesn't bother letting a dead man go back to earth and warn his brothers. They simply won't believe him.

The FULL clip of Obama has him saying the exact opposite of what you were shown on TV.


Watch me quote the Holy Bible the same way that Hannity, et al at Faux News and other RW sources have often quoted Obama (actually, I'll be somewhat more honest than them and indicate mine omissions with ellipses):
• Exodus 8:10: "...there is no God...." (CEV & The Message)
• Exodus 9:14: "...there is no God...." (EtR)
• Deuteronomy 3:24: "...there is no God...." (EtR & GNT)
• Deuteronomy 32:39: "...there is no God...." (all major translations except BB, CEV, D-R, GNT, JST, LITV, MCB, Msg, NIRV, NJB, NLT, & WE)
• Deuteronomy 33:26: "...there is no God...." (MCB)
• I Samuel 2:2: "...there is no God...." (GB & NCV)
• II Samuel 7:22: "...there is no God...." (CJB, ERB, ESV, EtR, HCSB, LITV, MCB, NAB, NASB, NCV, NIV, NLB, NLV, NRSV, RSV, UBv1.9, & YLT)
• II Samuel 22:32: "...there is no God...." (EtR & PLT)
• I Kings 8:23: "...there is no God...." (all major translations except CEV [Msg has this at verse 22], CJB, JST, LITV, & YLT)
• II Kings 1:3: "...there is no God...." (Amp, ASV, ERB, ERV, GB, GNT, HCSB, JPS, JST, NAB, NASB, NCV, NKJV, NIV, NLV, NRSV, PLT, RSV, & UBv1.9)
• II Kings 1:6: "...there is no God...." (ASV, ERB, ERV, GB, GNT, HNV, HCSB, JPS, JST, NAB, NASB, NCV, NKJV, NIV, NLV, NRSV, PLT, RSV, & UBv1.9)
• II Kings 1:16: "...there is no God...." (all major translations except BB, CEV, CJB, EtR, GB, GNT, LITV, MCB, Msg, NJB, NLT, NRSV, & YLT)
• II Kings 5:15: "...there is no God...." (all major translations except CEV, LITV, Holman, & YLT)
• I Chronicles 17:20: "...there is no God...." (CJB, ESV, HCSB, NAB, NCV, NIV, NLV, NRS, PLT, RSV, UBv1.9, & YLT)
• II Chronicles 6:14: "...there is no God...." (all major translations except CEV [Msg has this at verse 12], JST, LITV, & PLT)
• Job 12:6: "...there is no God...." (PLT)
• Psalm 10:4: "...there is no God...." (Amp, ASV, BBE, CJB, Darby, ERV, ESV, GB, LITV, NASB, NJB, NLV, NRS, PLT, RSV, & UBv1.9)
• Psalm 14:1: "...there is no God...." (all major translations except BBE, Msg, JPS, JST, LITV, & YLT)
• Psalm 18:31: "...there is no God...." (EtR & PLT)
• Psalm 53:1: "...there is no God...." (all major translations except BBE, CJB, JST, LITV, & Msg [JPS has this at verse 2])
• Psalm 71:19: "...there is no God...." (EtR)
• Psalm 86:8: "...there is no God...." (BBE, GNT, & NCV)
• Proverbs 30:1: "...there is no God...." (Msg)
• Isaiah 44:6: "...there is no God...." (all major translations except CEV, EtR, JST, LITV, MCB, Msg, NKJV, & NCV)
• Isaiah 44:8: "...there is no God...." (KJ1611, KJ21, KJV*, PLT, & TMB)
• Isaiah 45:5: "...there is no God...." (all major translations except CEV, CJB, EtR, JST, Msg, NASB, NCV, & NJB)
• Isaiah 45:6: "...there is no God...." (Amp, BBE, & GWT)
• Isaiah 45:14: "...there is no God..." (ASV, ERV, KJ1611, KJ21, KJV*, & NASB)
• Isaiah 45:21: "...there is no God...." (Amp, ASV, Darby, ERV, JPS, KJ1611, KJ21, KJV*, NKJV, NIRV, NIV, & TMB)
• Isaiah 46:9: "...there is no God...." (D-R)
• Daniel 3:29: "...there is no God...." (BB, GB, & MCB)
• Micah 7:18: "...there is no God...." (EtR, NCV, & PLT)
• Judith 6:2: "...there is no God...." (D-R)
• Sirach [Ben Sira] 36:2: "...there is no God...." (D-R)
• Sirach [Ben Sira] 36:5: "...there is no God...." (D-R, GNT, KJ1611, KJV, & NRSV [NAB has this at verse 4])
• Sirach [Ben Sira] 36:13: "...there is no God...." (D-R)
• II Esdras 8:58: "...there is no God...." (KJV, NRSV, & TMB)
• I Corinthians 8:4: "...there is no God...." (Amp, ASV, BBE, ERV, ESV, HCSB, Msg, NAB, NIV, NJB, NRVS, RSV, UBv1.9, Webster, Wesley N.T., Weymouth N.T. & Wycliffe N.T. [for obvious reasons, this is the only appearance of that phrase in the Wesley, Weymouth, & Wycliffe])


intelligent comment below: ZipSplat: Oh here we go again. Gun control is one of the big issues I have with the left in an otherwise agreeable relationship. Look, if you want to pass a Constitutional amendment to change the Second Amendment, do that. But you're trying to pretend that in the 1780's, immediately after the Revolutionary War period, that the authors of the Second Amendment intended that gun ownership be restricted to formal members of an organized militia, you are off your goddamn rocker and off into "WHARS THE BIRTH CERTIFKAT??? NOE TEH REAL WAN!!!!" realms of daftness.

The second amendment is saying, in contemporary terms, that militias are necessary, and therefore the right of people to keep and bear arms, clearly for the purposes of building a militia, will not be infringed.

Your knowledge of history is frightening. Seems like the hobby of liking guns has blinded you to the reality and history of the country.

I'm not making the argument guns shouldn't be legal, but the context in which the amendment was written was strictly to make sure state militia aged men would not be able to be disarmed by the federal government.

These people were part of the state militias that today make up the national guard and police forces.

Absolutely nothing to do with the idea the NRA drilled into gun nuts since birth how your hobby should be covered.


As my above spiel re: Faux News quoting out-of-context should make plain, I'm no right-wing extremist. That said, it is your knowledge of history that is deficient.
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
↑ That is the second draft of the Second Amendment, the first revision after James Madison's proposed original. The part I boldfaced remained intact through the next two subsequent revisions as well, and was finally removed only because it was considered redundant! Everyone at the time knew what the word "militia" meant! What they didn't know was just how drastically the general interpretation of that word would change over time (sort of like how, just three decades ago, "going postal" only referred to how one might send a letter or physical object to a distant recipient).

There's also the small matter of how English grammar worked then and still works now. The operative clause of any compound complex sentence is the independent clause, the one that can stand alone in its own right as a grammatically complete sentence. All others are dependent clauses and are merely descriptive, not operative.

"A well regulated Militia, necessary to the security of a free State,"
↑ Is that a grammatically complete sentence in its own right? No? Then it's a dependent clause. Descriptive. Expressing a reason for what follows, not a limitation upon it.

"The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
↑ Is that a grammatically complete sentence in its own right? Yes? Then it's an independent clause. Operative.

You can rationally debate whether the Second Amendment has outlived its usefulness in this day and age, and should perhaps itself be amended. Just get two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, and then ¾ of the States, to agree with you.

But you can not rationally debate that the Second Amendment doesn't say and mean what it very clearly says and means: by the earlier drafts, by the debates held on it (all of which are publicly available freely on the Internet and elsewhere), by the meanings that the key words (not just "Militia" but also "well regulated," "Arms," etc.) had at the time and by the basic rules of English grammar, both then and now.

If it were worded in modern English vocabulary and grammar to convey the same concepts it did originally, it might read:

"Because a well-armed and equipped populace is necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear hand-wieldable weaponry and any ammo or other supporting materials needed for the use of same, shall not be infringed."

/feels unclean supporting GeneralJim...
 
2012-06-24 09:22:45 PM  

ZipSplat: for your position.



You mean the position of actually reading the entire farking amendment not just the part after the comma? And understanding history? Yeah how about that.
 
2012-06-24 09:38:53 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: Greece and other countries have recieved massive external investment, also. So of course, they're all doing just as well as Estonia.


Somalia has essentially no state apparatus in most of the country. Why aren't they doing better?
 
2012-06-24 09:51:14 PM  

COMALite J: ↑ That is the second draft of the Second Amendment, the first revision after James Madison's proposed original. The part I boldfaced remained intact through the next two subsequent revisions as well, and was finally removed only because it was considered redundant! Everyone at the time knew what the word "militia" meant! What they didn't know was just how drastically the general interpretation of that word would change over time (sort of like how, just three decades ago, "going postal" only referred to how one might send a letter or physical object to a distant recipient).



So, in other words, you're interpreting the Constitution to convey your sense of what it means because you know that the reason that the framers (by most accounts and consensus learned and wise men) scrupulously and conscientiously excised certain wording was because "everybody knew what they meant" and it could not possibly have been a deliberate and judicious editorial decision, rather than, say, to give the calligraphers a break or some such. If it was removed "because it was redundant" then there would be no ambiguity, yes? Even accounting for 18th century diction and phraseology, yes? You're asserting that the first draft is what they really, really meant? I wonder what the nation would be like with that ghost-grail version of the Constitution! Guess that's hardcore original-original intent.

Or, it could just be, like, your opinion.
 
2012-06-24 09:51:27 PM  
wow, I see those and hear Dave Chappelle yelling "White Power!"
 
2012-06-24 09:52:09 PM  
Halli:
GeneralJim: Jorn the Younger: You seriously think someone can receive the Presidential nomination of one of the major parties without having been vetted, by that party, as well as by the federal government itself?

Yes, yes I do.

green derp redacted.

Link

Link

Birther screeds? Man you really need to take your pills jim.

As may be, but at least I didn't just link to the same article twice. Did you think it would be more impressive to have two links? Or, are your meds doses in need of adjustment?

And the POINT, dumbass, was that Obama was not vetted -- or at least not COMPETENTLY vetted, as this would have come up if he had been.

So, you're saying it's all cool, because Obama's family lied (you claim) to get him into school, and Obama then used that in his entrance package to Occidental? Well, I suppose if you're okay with a racist welfare cheat in Congress...

And, Obama's a Muslim, as declared on said form? You're okay with that? He could have claimed anything, it was not what you will no doubt call a "necessary lie" like Indonesian citizenship. So, which was the unnecessary lie that Obama told? That he is a Muslim, or that he is NOT a Muslim? What does HE say about it?


VIDEO
 
2012-06-24 09:55:07 PM  
vygramul:
Your reading comprehension really approaches zero if you thinkthat the conclusion of that post is that you're all racists.

Okay, as I said, I'm not a licensed professional. So, what the Hell DID your conspiracy theory screed actually mean, at least to you?
 
2012-06-24 10:06:17 PM  
thamike:
vygramul: What an amazing farktard you are.

Don't engage him.

Scary, huh? Don't worry -- legal or not, he's not my type.
 
2012-06-24 10:06:19 PM  

COMALite J: Halli: Animatronik: Truth is, Obama is losing the constitutional challenges. Obama said a couple years ago that he couldnt offer amnesty to a million illegal immigrants because its against the law. Now he doesnt care, because when SCOTUS strikes it down, he scores big points with Latino voters in an election year. Even the liberal justices are going against him. Example: 9-0 decision against EEOC in a lawsuit attacking a church's employment practices.

Yeah that Hannity clip only showed half of what Obama was saying. FOX News tends to be dishonest like that.

vygramul: Animatronik: jcooli09: GeneralJim: vygramul:
...
Obama said a couple years ago that he couldn't offer amnesty to a million illegal immigrants because its against the law.

See, this is where FOXNews has you fooled. And even though I can prove it, it won't change your mind. Why? For the same reason God doesn't bother letting a dead man go back to earth and warn his brothers. They simply won't believe him.

The FULL clip of Obama has him saying the exact opposite of what you were shown on TV.

Watch me quote the Holy Bible the same way that Hannity, et al at Faux News and other RW sources have often quoted Obama (actually, I'll be somewhat more honest than them and indicate mine omissions with ellipses):• Exodus 8:10: "...there is no God...." (CEV & The Message)
• Exodus 9:14: "...there is no God...." (EtR)
• Deuteronomy 3:24: "...there is no God...." (EtR & GNT)
• Deuteronomy 32:39: "...there is no God...." (all major translations except BB, CEV, D-R, GNT, JST, LITV, MCB, Msg, NIRV, NJB, NLT, & WE)
• Deuteronomy 33:26: "...there is no God...." (MCB)
• I Samuel 2:2: "...there is no God...." (GB & NCV)
• II Samuel 7:22: "...there is no God...." (CJB, ERB, ESV, EtR, HCSB, LITV, MCB, NAB, NASB, NCV, NIV†, NLB, NLV, NRSV, RSV, UBv1.9, & YLT)
• II Samuel 22:32: "...there is no God...." (EtR & PLT)
• I Kings 8:23: "...there is no God...." (all major translations except CEV [Msg has this at verse 22], CJB ...


Congrats! You just achieved maximum derp.
 
2012-06-24 10:09:44 PM  

GeneralJim: vygramul: Your reading comprehension really approaches zero if you thinkthat the conclusion of that post is that you're all racists.
Okay, as I said, I'm not a licensed professional. So, what the Hell DID your conspiracy theory screed actually mean, at least to you?


Well, it's clear English isn't your profession.

Let's start simple: is the Obamabucks image racist?
 
2012-06-24 10:11:11 PM  

xaveth: Congrats! You just achieved maximum derp.


Well, yes, he was trying to do what FOXNews does. So if he matched it, of COURSE he reached maximum derp.
 
2012-06-24 10:34:16 PM  

Sid_6.7: SouthernFriedYankee: Greece and other countries have recieved massive external investment, also. So of course, they're all doing just as well as Estonia.

Somalia has essentially no state apparatus in most of the country. Why aren't they doing better?


Please quote for me where I've advocated no government, or a warlord ruled Thunderdome society, or anything of the sort. Find the post, and quote it. Please show me where I've said that Estonia has disbanded their government entirely or even almost entirely. Kindly demonstrate one good reason why this assertion of yours is anything less than a total non-sequitur.

Part of having as reasonable discussion is not resorting to intellectual dishonesty like this. You can't claim your worldview to be superior to mine when you pull this crap. Well, you can - but you look like a fool when you do.
 
2012-06-24 10:47:57 PM  

vygramul: xaveth: Congrats! You just achieved maximum derp.

Well, yes, he was trying to do what FOXNews does. So if he matched it, of COURSE he reached maximum derp.


Don't you mean FauxNewzz?
 
2012-06-24 10:54:35 PM  
Jorn the Younger:
GeneralJim: Now, if his adopted father changed his citizenship to Indonesian, Obama could have regained American citizenship by simply filing a paper. There is no evidence that he did that. Further, there is no evidence that he changed his name back to his birth name. That would mean that a foreign citizen has usurped the Presidency under an assumed name. That's the kind of information that would come out of a thorough vetting process.

Now, it is possible that Lolo Soetoro lied on the school admissions forms, and Obama never was legally named Barry Soetoro, and never surrendered his citizenship. If he had been vetted, we would know the answer to whether his Indonesian citizenship and name were faked. But, as far as I know, nobody has searched the Indonesian records to see if he was naturalized. So, no, he wasn't vetted.


Ok, I read the rest of it (wanted a chuckle). Would you be able to provide a link to the documentation of Barack Obama changing his name to Barry Soetoro within the American system? Do you have a copy of his social security card with that name, or anything like that?

Okay, you're busted. I DID NOT mention ANY "name". You're just reading from DNC talking points. At least read what I wrote before you explode in poutrage, eh, cupcake?

Also, I enjoy that you shamelessly reveal your position that because nobody flagged you down and told you about something, it can't possibly have happened.

That's a simple hallucination on your part. I never said that, don't believe that, and, frankly, can't believe that YOU are stupid enough to believe that. Or is that just another insult you clipped from the DNC talking points?

Obama wasn't just vetted by the Democrats and by the Feds, you moron, he was vetted by the Republicans as well. If there were _any_ truth to any of this bullshiat, McCain would have brought it up during the election. Or would you assert that McCain, and his entire campaign staff, were in on the conspiracy?

WTF? You have a picture of what I wrote, even before I wrote it. You are responding to an archetype, not to what I wrote. Bizarre. What's your pay rate?

Do you remember the point of my post? It was that it was obvious that Obama had NOT been competently vetted. Thanks for acknowledging my point.

And, also, note that Obama has made every record about himself as private as possible, and spent millions of taxpayer dollars ensuring that the public knows as little about him as possible. And, as to why Republicans didn't take advantage of what is either a citizenship issue or an issue of lying on official forms, first, the records may have remained secret until after the election, and, even if they knew, the Democrats plan to tie ANY objection to ANYTHING about Obama to racism met with more than a little success.


So why didn't this "truth" come out before? I'd assume because it took this long for the "intrepid investigator" who "discovered" it to get a cracked copy of photoshop to work.

It's not like the MSM was into digging into Obama's past. They did a MUCH more thorough job of investigating Joe the Plumber. Now, since Obama has shown some of his self, they're less impressed, and the hypnosis seems to be over, leaving only the anger at being fooled, and a dull ache in their collective rectum.

And so you know, I'm not the only one laughing at you. The assholes who feeding you this bullshiat are laughing at you too. They can't get over how eagerly you eat this shiat up.

Drooling idiots laugh inappropriately. This is news?

Oh, and speaking of laughing at the minions... How about the handlers that managed to convince gullible jackasses like yourself that a Chicago politician who got his start by having his opponents disqualified on technicalities, and who lies about his religion and citizenship is some sort of Messiah? The echo of THAT high five must still be ringing.
 
2012-06-24 10:57:15 PM  
Mrtraveler01:
I don't think critics of Obama are racist. But when they keep insisting that he's a Kenyan/Indonesian muslim usurper who hates anyone not black, how the hell am I not supposed to view that in a racist way?

So, you would see no reason to question a white President with serious questions of citizenship? Really? If you can't see anything but race as a motivation, you're a racist.
 
2012-06-24 10:59:37 PM  

xaveth: vygramul: xaveth: Congrats! You just achieved maximum derp.

Well, yes, he was trying to do what FOXNews does. So if he matched it, of COURSE he reached maximum derp.

Don't you mean FauxNewzz?


It is tempting to just refer to them that way, especially their shameless manipulation of their audience with their recent editing of Obama's comments from a couple of years ago regarding immigration. It's worthy of NBC's side-saddle pick-up truck fuel tank report (where they rigged the tanks to explode to show how dangerous they are).

Certainly, some of FOXNews' errors are accidental. CNN can say the space shuttle is going 17 times the speed of light, and FOX sometimes will label Iraq "Egypt". (Both happened.)

FOXNews also provided a product for an under-served viewership. There was a niche of conservative and ultraconservative Americans who were not getting news they liked to hear. (Obviously, there wasn't a similar liberal community, or CurrentTV would be more successful and Air America wouldn't have tanked. What that says about the mainstream media I leave as an exercise for the reader.)

However, FOXNews isn't equivalent to MSNBC. They're like Noam Chomsky, only less sophisticated. And that's really a shame.
 
2012-06-24 11:01:43 PM  

GeneralJim: some sort of Messiah?


Ooh, are we listening to classical music now? 'Cause I like that one.

Sorry, but that's always what I think of when y'all start up with that messiah stuff.
 
2012-06-24 11:04:42 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: GeneralJim: some sort of Messiah?

Ooh, are we listening to classical music now? 'Cause I like that one.

Sorry, but that's always what I think of when y'all start up with that messiah stuff.


I always just think, "If we don't sin, Jesus died for nothing."
 
2012-06-24 11:05:12 PM  

intelligent comment below: ZipSplat: for your position.


You mean the position of actually reading the entire farking amendment not just the part after the comma? And understanding history? Yeah how about that.


Either you didn't actually read what I wrote, or your reading comprehension is really bad. Try again.
 
2012-06-24 11:30:23 PM  

GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: I don't think critics of Obama are racist. But when they keep insisting that he's a Kenyan/Indonesian muslim usurper who hates anyone not black, how the hell am I not supposed to view that in a racist way?
So, you would see no reason to question a white President with serious questions of citizenship? Really? If you can't see anything but race as a motivation, you're a racist.


Ignoring the documents that show how the questions are not actually serious is the part people have a problem. How many birth certificates do you want to see? There was a editorial in 07 arguing that he was born in Hawaii before it was a state. A minimal amount of fact-checking would've shown that he was born there two years after Hawaii was made a state, but that's the level of silliness these accusations sank to. And now they've moved the goal posts to suggest that even if he was born in the US, his father's citizenship makes him ineligible. Funny how that never occurred to them until after the long-form was revealed. The constant shouting of "We'll stop asking about his eligibility once we see the long-form!" is what makes the issue silly, 'cause that proved to be absolutely false. They're just determined to find some way to prove he's ineligible, despite all the evidence that he's eligible.

Short version: So, you would see no reason to question a white President with serious questions of citizenship?

[inigomontoya.jpg]
 
2012-06-25 12:04:28 AM  

runcible spork: COMALite J: ↑ That is the second draft of the Second Amendment, the first revision after James Madison's proposed original. The part I boldfaced remained intact through the next two subsequent revisions as well, and was finally removed only because it was considered redundant! Everyone at the time knew what the word "militia" meant! What they didn't know was just how drastically the general interpretation of that word would change over time (sort of like how, just three decades ago, "going postal" only referred to how one might send a letter or physical object to a distant recipient).

So, in other words, you're interpreting the Constitution to convey your sense of what it means because you know that the reason that the framers (by most accounts and consensus learned and wise men) scrupulously and conscientiously excised certain wording was because "everybody knew what they meant" and it could not possibly have been a deliberate and judicious editorial decision, rather than, say, to give the calligraphers a break or some such. If it was removed "because it was redundant" then there would be no ambiguity, yes? Even accounting for 18th century diction and phraseology, yes? You're asserting that the first draft is what they really, really meant? I wonder what the nation would be like with that ghost-grail version of the Constitution! Guess that's hardcore original-original intent.

Or, it could just be, like, your opinion.


I'm sorry, but what part of "But you can not rationally debate that the Second Amendment doesn't say and mean what it very clearly says and means: by the earlier drafts, by the debates held on it (all of which are publicly available freely on the Internet and elsewhere), by the meanings that the key words (not just "Militia" but also "well regulated," "Arms," etc.) had at the time and by the basic rules of English grammar, both then and now." did you not understand? Have you read the Congressional debates? All of them? I have.

I'm not the one posting opinion here. You are. The word "Militia" was a synonym for "armed populace" or "armed body of the people." This is how the word was used back then. The very fact that even in the final version, the noun used in the operative, independent clause was "the People," not "the Militia" as would be the case if you were right, should be enough to prove this.

I challenge you to show me even one exception written by a Founding Father. Show me the word "Militia" used in the sense of something like the National Guard, by the Founding Fathers, While I have not read every word they ever wrote, I have read an awful lot, and I have never encountered any writing nor transcribed speech of any of them using that word in that sense, at least not as intended for the United States, its Constitution, etc. They often used it interchangeably with "the people," as would be expected for synonyms.

There is no ambiguity except in the minds of people like yourself who do not understand basic English grammar (even modern English), nor the use of the terms at the time, nor even basic historical chronology. The Founders had no idea that there would ever be a National Guard or any such thing. They could not possibly have been referring to such a thing. That didn't come into existence until about a century after their time.
 
2012-06-25 12:07:03 AM  

GeneralJim: Jorn the Younger: GeneralJim: Now, if his adopted father changed his citizenship to Indonesian, Obama could have regained American citizenship by simply filing a paper. There is no evidence that he did that. Further, there is no evidence that he changed his name back to his birth name. That would mean that a foreign citizen has usurped the Presidency under an assumed name. That's the kind of information that would come out of a thorough vetting process.

Now, it is possible that Lolo Soetoro lied on the school admissions forms, and Obama never was legally named Barry Soetoro, and never surrendered his citizenship. If he had been vetted, we would know the answer to whether his Indonesian citizenship and name were faked. But, as far as I know, nobody has searched the Indonesian records to see if he was naturalized. So, no, he wasn't vetted.

Ok, I read the rest of it (wanted a chuckle). Would you be able to provide a link to the documentation of Barack Obama changing his name to Barry Soetoro within the American system? Do you have a copy of his social security card with that name, or anything like that?
Okay, you're busted. I DID NOT mention ANY "name". You're just reading from DNC talking points. At least read what I wrote before you explode in poutrage, eh, cupcake?


"I never said this thing I'm quoting myself as having said!"

Are you the dumbest person on the planet?
 
Displayed 50 of 649 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report