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
    More: Stupid, President Obama, art world, Thomas Kinkade, Jon McNaughton, U.S. Constitution, Sean Hannity  
•       •       •

14105 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jun 2012 at 6:00 PM (3 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
 
2012-06-25 12:21:42 AM  

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.


I question the people who can't seem to focus on anything except the (retarded) idea that the president isn't a US citizen. If these people put half of that effort into fixing the country, we'd be the richest and most well-built country in the world by now.
 
2012-06-25 12:51:46 AM  

COMALite J: 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.



1) I admit that in my haste I missed some of your subsequent discussion on that aspect (thinking it was addressing something else), but even so, I'm not convinced that the material you've alluded to covers the topic unequivocally. If it is all so painfully unambiguous why have constitutional scholars had dissenting opinions and interpretations for centuries?
2) The point is that the framers were prescient enough to realize that the structure and existence of organizations such as a militia might be subject to change, and were keen to produce a document that was not so parochial as to exclude more possibilities than were absolutely necessary. Hence the revisions. Do you honestly believe they were so lunkheaded as to assume stasis (keeping in mind how they ensured onerous requirements for formal emendation)?
3) Why are you so quick to hurl specious insults such as the bolded text above when it's patently untrue (from my earlier response to you and other posts of mine in this thread)? It bespeaks pettiness and churlishness. You clearly aren't interested in dialogue but instead in unseemly spewing. The grammatical interpretation you choose to espouse (seemingly acquired wholesale from libertarian and conservative sources), possibly misses the forest for the syntactical trees.
4) If you cannot recognize that you yourself are deploying a strong opinion here and are acting exceedingly close-minded, then perhaps it is you are displaying a species of ignorance.
 
2012-06-25 01:47:54 AM  
This started out as an impromptu photoshop thread and turned into a birther / bible study thread. I'm a little disappointed.
 
2012-06-25 02:00:25 AM  

balki1867: This started out as an impromptu photoshop thread and turned into a birther / bible study thread. I'm a little disappointed.


We'll always have 07:07:29 PM.
 
2012-06-25 02:05:58 AM  

balki1867: This started out as an impromptu photoshop thread and turned into a birther / bible study thread. I'm a little disappointed.


seconded

i was hoping for more bad/cheeky "art"

fun learning about the celery/panties artist tho
 
2012-06-25 02:13:30 AM  

that bosnian sniper: LoneWolf343: That picture one is iconic. This isn't. Observe it's simplicity in comparison to the maelstrom of "symbolism" in the more conservative paintings. These paintings are noisy in their subject matter, dreary in their color schemes. The morass of elements in these paintings mix together into a bland sea of grey. The Change poster is stark, high-contrast, and yet deep in emotion.

You know what, you're ridiculously onto something. I knew that style evicted something, but couldn't quite put my finger on it until you made this comment.


If that's the style he was going for, he fell well short.

Maybe there's the same vague kind of misty sentimentality, but look at that second painting. Look at it! Say what you say about the Communist International, but that some goddamn emotional intensity up in that biatch.

Compare and contrast with "The Empowered Man";

Empowered Man: "I haz a constitution."

President 0bama: "Oh noe, it is a constitution."

Dead Presidents: [painfully awkward expressions of rapture]
 
2012-06-25 02:20:31 AM  
Wait, this isnt an onion article?
 
2012-06-25 02:23:29 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: See, this is the problem with the art world. People like GJ who think that their definition of art is the only correct one.

 
2012-06-25 02:30:22 AM  

GeneralJim: Wall of green derp


Jesus, how much does it pay to be a professional troll around here? I could use a few bucks.
 
2012-06-25 02:31:48 AM  

TsukasaK: 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 image 375x523]


god that was a fun thread
 
2012-06-25 04:04:25 AM  

TsukasaK: 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 image 375x523]



Oh funny, you believe a biased activist court when it fits your needs.

If the word militia wasn't necessary, then it shouldn't have been in there in the first place. Obviously it was placed in there for a reason, to keep the militia from being disarmed by a powerful government.
 
2012-06-25 07:19:51 AM  
runcible spork:
"Interpreted?" Okay, show me where first-term abortions are even mentioned in the Constitution.

Why don't you show me where the Constitution mentions abortion of any sort? Do you mean to suggest that government shouldn't have anything to say about abortion in general, because I wonder how that squares with your views. Or, show me where the Constitution indicates how to account for such "unborn citizens." If a slave was three-fifths of a citizen, how should one calculate the proportional personhood of a fetus? How about where it explicitly says that "life" begins when sperm meets ovum?

In your own special way, you're correct here. That was my point. The Constitution is utterly SILENT on the issue of abortion. And yet, there is a "fundamental right" to abortion in the Constitution, at least according to SCOTUS.

In case pushing your automatic debate button on abortion confused you, the original point was that SCOTUS was going beyond 'interpreting' the Constitution. I said that this issue showed that the court was doing more than 'interpreting' the Constitution in Roe v. Wade. Thanks for backing me up.

And, since you've asked, YES, I feel that the FEDERAL government should have nothing to say about abortion. Those powers not SPECIFICALLY granted to the federal government are left to the States, or to the People. (Tenth Amendment to the Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.) Before the federal government could legitimately act on abortion, it would need a Constitutional Amendment -- which would be, IMHO, unlikely whether it supported or banned abortion, or set a starting point at which 'human life' begins.


drbristol.files.wordpress.com
Fished in...
Oh, oh, OHHHHHH!

 
2012-06-25 07:31:07 AM  
runcible spork:
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?

Because "arms" is open to interpretation.

There are only two ways I can think of to interpret what YOU are saying here, and both of them are incredibly stupid. Please do let me know if there is another way (stupid or not) that is what you meant.

The first way I see is that "arms" means guns like the colonists had -- flintlock rifles. If that is the stupid way you are interpreting "arms," then you have no right to post on the internet, or write an pamphlet on your computer and print up copies, because your "free speech" only includes what the colonists had -- unamplified, unrecorded speech, handwritten material, and material printed on the page-at-a-time moveable type printing presses. The concept that rights are limited to technology available at the time of the signing of the Constitution is too stupid to be considered seriously.

And the second interpretation is even worse. Seriously, are you one of THESE?


picrocker.com

 
2012-06-25 07:42:20 AM  
runcible spork:
All too often, "interpreting the Constitution" means "getting around the Constitution." The Founders left VERY clear explanations of what they meant, just in case anyone wasn't clear after reading the Constitution, and Bill of Rights. A hint: The Second Amendment is NOT about hunting or self-defense.

Maybe something about a militia? They weren't very clear about that.

As the Founders saw it, the "militia" was the set of all adult (meaning around 13 years old and up) male citizens. Like other provisions, this would be, today, logically expanded to include women. The definition of "militia" has changed a bit since then, but what the Founders intended was infinitely clear: they wanted the armed citizens of the United States to be able to overthrow the government of the United States, should they decide that such a thing was necessary. And, by "necessary," they meant that if a government were to be voted out of office, and refuse to leave, the citizens should be able to force them out.

encrypted-tbn1.google.com

 
2012-06-25 08:08:52 AM  
runcible spork:
Can you honestly assert that Roberts, Scalia & Co. are not what's commonly called "activist judges" (and by extension, hypocrites), especially after rulings such as Citizens United?

No, they are as activist as the court of Roe v. Wade, and I do not approve of activism in EITHER direction.

I note that you get your panties in a wad when conservative activism takes place, but support liberal activism. When are you assholes going to learn that when you give the government unwarranted power, sooner or later it WILL come back to bite you in the ass? Letting activism in SCOTUS sail through in Roe v Wade sets a precedent for the Citizens United case. You NEED to stop agreeing to wrong actions if they support your ideas.


Are you also suggesting that the rich and venerable field of Constitutional scholarship is unnecessary because the Constitution functions essentially as a cookbook for government? Do you think that the framers were so shortsighted so as to be unaware that the world -- technology, medicine, religious dogma, social mores, et cetera -- would not change in the years after the adoption of the founding document? That amendments would be necessary for every new wrinkle?

No, not that at all. There are many places where interpretation is needed. I am just saying that not everything called "interpretation" is actually interpretation. As you yourself pointed out, the Constitution says NOTHING about abortion or when life starts. That means you cannot "interpret" what it says. Roe v. Wade is, effectively, SCOTUS passing legislation, as is the Citizens United decision. That's flat-out wrong. It is SCOTUS (the judicial branch) usurping the power of Congress (the legislative branch.)

Also wrong is the vast horde of "regulations" coming from the Executive Branch, which are indistinguishable from legislation. That is the Executive Branch usurping the power of Congress. The idea that if Congress doesn't pass legislation the President wants, he implements it via regulations from EPA, or whatever, or issues an Executive Order is, despite Godwin, how dictators come to be. What's next? The ability of the President to strike down existing laws? Right now, the government is simply refusing to enforce laws it doesn't like.

Are you really stupid enough to think that only leftists will be elected as President from now on, so the President usurping powers is okay? I'm assuming you still get wood over GWB -- so think of it this way: any powers you would give to an Obama would ALSO go to a GWB, or a Nixon.

The Constitution is a wonderful document. It is clearly the best plan for government ever conceived. But, for it to work, it needs to be followed. The Constitution is like the law, for government. SCOTUS is supposed to ensure that the laws passed by Congress, the Legislative Branch, and the actions of the Executive Branch, are allowed by the Constitution. Forcing people to buy products from campaign donors (the insurance companies, in this case) is CLEARLY unconstitutional, as I'm reasonably certain SCOTUS will announce, probably later today. Obamacare MUST be struck down, or the Constitution is over as anything other than a quaint bit of history.

But, equally atrocious are the actions of the President to over-ride Congress with Executive Orders and regulations. Christ, they even call them tsars -- do you need a better clue? The Constitution must be upheld, even if you agree with what is being done unconstitutionally... or, I should say ESPECIALLY if you agree. Just like it is most important to uphold the rights of offensive people, such as neo-NAZIs, to speak. Because they are unpopular, few will complain if their rights are infringed. But, if THEIR rights are infringed, that sets a precedent for infringing YOUR rights and MY rights. This should be clear, but apparently is not.
 
2012-06-25 08:19:30 AM  
mrshowrules:
I guess Top Secret clearances don't have any basic intelligence requirements.

/people with TS don't typically advertise it

I guess Fark doesn't have any requirements for understanding verb tenses.

I do not have a TS clearance. I did, and when I did, I never mentioned it. And I'm certainly giving away no secrets when I point out that you're a dumbass.
 
2012-06-25 08:24:14 AM  
that bosnian sniper:
So even if everything you just said happened to be the complete, whole truth (which it isn't in the first place), Obama was still eligible to run, and eligible to serve, as President.

Don't you farking READ a post? What I was showing is that Obama was NOT vetted, at least competently. You see a word or phrase on your talking points list, and off you go. Pathetic.
 
2012-06-25 08:51:40 AM  

GeneralJim: that bosnian sniper: So even if everything you just said happened to be the complete, whole truth (which it isn't in the first place), Obama was still eligible to run, and eligible to serve, as President.
Don't you farking READ a post? What I was showing is that Obama was NOT vetted, at least competently. You see a word or phrase on your talking points list, and off you go. Pathetic.


Or Obama was vetted, but the people doing the vetting weren't as stupid as you-

Just because nobody tapped you on the shoulder and said "we found this school admission form from Indonesia, but it's not something that would render him inelligable to serve as President" you assume it never happened- you indicated as much above, though of course claimed that you didn't.

But given as how you're apparently the dumbest person on the planet, this isn't all that surprising.
 
2012-06-25 09:26:14 AM  

intelligent comment below: Oh funny, you believe a biased activist court when it fits your needs.


"Biased activist court" when it doesn't fit your personal beliefs. How very Republican.
 
2012-06-25 09:29:09 AM  
(stupid enter key...)

intelligent comment below: If the word militia wasn't necessary,


You fail at reading forever. It's not unnecessary, you're just reading the wrong context into it. Again, the "well regulated militia" bit does not exclude non militia members from owning weapons. And even if it did, the result would be to join a militia.

Your "historical context" argument is complete bunkola. Going on the same line of thought, the 4th only refers to papers and persons, so these newfangled computers and other communications are exempt. Guess what.. laws evolve.
 
2012-06-25 09:40:40 AM  
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.

Nah, he's just a jackass looking desperately for something with which to insult me. His position is nothing but weak sauce, so that's all he has. I was told my TS status was not classified, itself. I still kept quiet about it while I had it. Of course, I wasn't looking for a job, then...
 
2012-06-25 09:46:10 AM  
mrshowrules:
I wouldn't hire anyone advertising there TS clearance on their resume.

That's an empty threat. I don't think transformer hookers can even GET a TS clearance.
 
2012-06-25 09:52:56 AM  
TheBigJerk:
The weather is political, GRAVITY is political, thanks to the Republicans EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL.

Seriously?

fundamentally-flawed.com

 
2012-06-25 10:06:00 AM  
runcible spork:
Gotcha. So you consider barely competent hackwork, the product of a muddled artistic sensibility (nb: I am not referencing McNaughton's political iconography -- such as it is -- here), to be superior artistically to some works from the latter half of the 20th century that are for the most part considered philosophically and artistically groundbreaking. Not that I care for a lot of them either, mind you, but I can acknowledge and understand their significance.

It seems you're arguing with one of the voices in your head, because I said NOTHING about what I like. Why don't you walk around on the streets, and mumble your arguments to yourself. It's getting tiresome to keep pointing out that I never said what you're objecting to.

Although I DO enjoy your appeal to authority on art. Your bus is here...


1.bp.blogspot.com

 
2012-06-25 10:09:15 AM  
Keizer_Ghidorah:
See, this is the problem with the art world. People like GJ who think that their definition of art is the only correct one.

You dumbass. I said no such thing. In point of fact, I was objecting to the idea that there is one definition for art. You know, your accuracy level could be greatly increased if you took everything you were GOING to say, and said the opposite.
 
2012-06-25 10:13:14 AM  
HeartBurnKid:
So, you admit that the 2nd amendment does not confer an absolute right.

Not to felons. Not to the mentally ill. But to all normal, non-felon U.S. citizens, yes. This is hard... why? And, why the fark are you phrasing this as if you were a prosecuting attorney? Are you of the opinion that if you COULD out-argue me, you could make the Second Amendment go away?
 
2012-06-25 10:21:17 AM  
Can't even bring yourself to say the Obamabucks pic is racist.
 
2012-06-25 10:23:04 AM  
runcible spork:
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.

i50.tinypic.com
Maximum Douche Achieved!

 
2012-06-25 10:29:52 AM  

GeneralJim: what the Founders intended was infinitely clear: they wanted the armed citizens of the United States to be able to overthrow the government of the United States


Actually, the purpose of the Second Amendment was to arm the people so they could continue fighting the US government's enemies, possibly long after the government was gone, which was a very real concern in those days.

The government couldn't afford to upkeep a full-time, professional standing army at the time, so giving every frontiersman a gun (which would be put to good use for hunting and other things -- guns were as essential as cars back then) was the most prudent choice. In times of war, they could then be called upon to organize into a defense force with their government-issued muskets. That's the meaning behind the "militia" clause.
 
2012-06-25 10:33:31 AM  
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...

It's a good feeling to nail a post. Perhaps someday you will feel it -- but not this time.

You don't understand what "militia" meant at the time of the Bill of Rights. I explain above. And, you didn't even finish the phrase, dumbass: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

To translate that into twenty-first century English: "Since a well-armed and skilled population is necessary to the security of a free country, the government shall not interfere with the rights of citizens to own and carry weapons."
 
2012-06-25 10:41:24 AM  
intelligent comment below:
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?

Try the Tenth Amendment, you horse's ass. Good God. One of the items I quote, voting, is up to the states -- and pretty much every possible situation exists, up to and including never being able to vote again after conviction for a felony.
 
2012-06-25 10:56:02 AM  
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.

Once more, a political discussion from Bizarro World. Are you saying stuff that is 180 degrees off of reality just to mess with people, or are you really that dumb?

The Second Amendment is about being able to overthrow the government. Read the Foederalist Papers, where the Founders discuss what they meant with the language of the Constitution. Also, many of them wrote about what they meant in other venues. I quote one above. Maybe you should STFU, and not look like such a tool.
 
2012-06-25 11:15:56 AM  
vygramul:
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.

That was English? I know the individual WORDS were English, but...

Let's start simple: is the Obamabucks image racist?

Ooh, the "let's see if I can trap him with a question" game. Okay, I'll play. Yes, yes it is.

My turn: Is it worse to portray Obama as a chimp than to portray GWB as a chimp?
 
2012-06-25 11:21:23 AM  
vygramul:
I always just think, "If we don't sin, Jesus died for nothing."

Well, He died for you, too, so in part He DID die for nothing.

/ Ta-BOOM-sissss
/ Actually, I don't believe in the Atonement Doctrine.
 
2012-06-25 11:31:02 AM  
Jorn the Younger:
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?

Meh. Hell, no. I'm not even the dumbest person in this thread. I did make a mistake though -- due to all the talking point arguments, I thought you were arguing against that bonehead theory about some other person having Obama's SSAN.
 
2012-06-25 11:35:15 AM  
Keizer_Ghidorah:
I question the people who can't seem to focus on anything except the (retarded) idea that the president isn't a US citizen.

Are you a liar or a dumbass? Or, could it be both? I wasn't even presenting that, as other than a comment on the alleged "vetting" process. That's a bit of a way from not being able to focus on anything BUT that. More made-up bullshiat.
 
2012-06-25 11:39:34 AM  
runcible spork:
1) I admit that in my haste I missed some of your subsequent discussion on that aspect (thinking it was addressing something else), but even so, I'm not convinced that the material you've alluded to covers the topic unequivocally. If it is all so painfully unambiguous why have constitutional scholars had dissenting opinions and interpretations for centuries?

Really? Show me one, please.
 
2012-06-25 11:46:48 AM  
Jorn the Younger:
Just because nobody tapped you on the shoulder and said "we found this school admission form from Indonesia, but it's not something that would render him inelligable to serve as President" you assume it never happened- you indicated as much above, though of course claimed that you didn't.

No, I did not. Why is it you think that you can read minds?
 
2012-06-25 11:49:43 AM  
vygramul:
Can't even bring yourself to say the Obamabucks pic is racist.

You really need to direct your insults better. I HAVE said so. Were you talking to me?
 
2012-06-25 01:44:20 PM  

gingerjet: The Empowered Man is rather cute.

/i do him


I'm a blond-haired white guy with a big wad of cash, so I'm getting a kick (and a partial chubby) out of this post.
 
2012-06-25 02:05:54 PM  

GeneralJim: vygramul: 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.
That was English? I know the individual WORDS were English, but...

Let's start simple: is the Obamabucks image racist?
Ooh, the "let's see if I can trap him with a question" game. Okay, I'll play. Yes, yes it is.

My turn: Is it worse to portray Obama as a chimp than to portray GWB as a chimp?


Yes. For the same reason that it would be worse to portray an Asian with caricature teeth, but it was ok to portray Carter with them. It would be inappropriate to portray a Jewish personality as a rat, but ok portray Bill Clinton as one.
 
2012-06-25 02:06:30 PM  

GeneralJim: vygramul: I always just think, "If we don't sin, Jesus died for nothing."
Well, He died for you, too, so in part He DID die for nothing.

/ Ta-BOOM-sissss
/ Actually, I don't believe in the Atonement Doctrine.


I don't sin.
 
2012-06-25 02:08:26 PM  

GeneralJim: vygramul: Can't even bring yourself to say the Obamabucks pic is racist.
You really need to direct your insults better. I HAVE said so. Were you talking to me?


You didn't say it in this thread until after I said that. Pay attention.
 
2012-06-25 02:50:58 PM  
Jeezus, Jim, thanks for staying overtime to fight the gun trolls :)

I think that's the longest unbroken chain of posts I've seen on Fark at any time...

/I think I've asked you this before, but what's with the green reply text?
 
2012-06-25 02:52:29 PM  

vygramul: Yes. For the same reason that it would be worse to portray an Asian with caricature teeth, but it was ok to portray Carter with them. It would be inappropriate to portray a Jewish personality as a rat, but ok portray Bill Clinton as one.


Am I the only one to think this particular part of "racism" is farking retarded? It's all about intent, regardless if someone decides to get offended by it. Kind of like how you can say ni-*BONG* as either friendly or as a racial slur.
 
2012-06-25 03:05:55 PM  

TsukasaK: vygramul: Yes. For the same reason that it would be worse to portray an Asian with caricature teeth, but it was ok to portray Carter with them. It would be inappropriate to portray a Jewish personality as a rat, but ok portray Bill Clinton as one.

Am I the only one to think this particular part of "racism" is farking retarded? It's all about intent, regardless if someone decides to get offended by it. Kind of like how you can say ni-*BONG* as either friendly or as a racial slur.


I didn't say it would be racist. I concurred that it would be worse. Whether you think it's worse because it perpetuates a racist stereotype, unintentionally or otherwise, or you think it's worse because it invites unfair claims of racism, is not a question that is being answered.

For example: I think Adidas' shackle-shoes was almost certainly unintentional. However, Adidas probably wished someone in the product approval chain was a little more sensitive to the history of African-Americans. Guaranteed.
 
2012-06-25 04:19:11 PM  

GeneralJim: HeartBurnKid: So, you admit that the 2nd amendment does not confer an absolute right.
Not to felons. Not to the mentally ill. But to all normal, non-felon U.S. citizens, yes. This is hard... why? And, why the fark are you phrasing this as if you were a prosecuting attorney? Are you of the opinion that if you COULD out-argue me, you could make the Second Amendment go away?


Boy, you're jumpy, Jimbo. No, I don't think that I could make the Second Amendment go away by out-arguing you, nor do I want to. I am just amused by the fact that your hard-fought Constitutional literalism disappears the instant you want something to be there that isn't.
 
2012-06-26 12:26:05 AM  

GeneralJim: Jorn the Younger: 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?
Meh. Hell, no. I'm not even the dumbest person in this thread. I did make a mistake though -- due to all the talking point arguments, I thought you were arguing against that bonehead theory about some other person having Obama's SSAN.


What "talking point arguments" are you referring to- you posted some bullshiat, I responded with why it was bullshiat, and you replied "Talking points!" and proceeded to ignore why your bullshiat was bullshiat.

GeneralJim: Jorn the Younger: Just because nobody tapped you on the shoulder and said "we found this school admission form from Indonesia, but it's not something that would render him inelligable to serve as President" you assume it never happened- you indicated as much above, though of course claimed that you didn't.
No, I did not. Why is it you think that you can read minds?


Yes, yes you did. You stated your belief that Obama was never vetted, because nobody bothered to show you the meaningless paperwork.

You then stated that "as far as I(you) know" the document you pasted into this thread had not been seen and found to be irrelevent. Which was when I said, oh, so if nobody flagged you down to point it out, it can't have happened. (You then replied that you never stated such a thing, it's pretty funny how you keep doing that)

This is the internet, you moron, and the things you say are recorded here for reference. I don't need to read minds, because I can read a website.
 
2012-06-26 08:53:02 AM  

Jorn the Younger: What "talking point arguments" are you referring to- you posted some bullshiat, I responded with why it was bullshiat, and you replied "Talking points!" and proceeded to ignore why your bullshiat was bullshiat.


It's his specialty.
 
Displayed 49 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 »
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