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.

(Big 1059)   Bored and with apparently nothing else to do, Sen. Charles Schumer focuses energy directly at frickin' laser pointers   (big1059.com ) divider line
    More: Silly, Chuck Schumer  
•       •       •

1230 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Aug 2012 at 11:17 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-08-06 12:28:24 PM  

bigstoopidbruce: Epoch_Zero: Meanwhile, Republicans scramble to figure out this futuristic 'laser' technology, ask if it is anything like their newfangled phonographs.

Yes, sure. And are Republicans the ones trying to destroy the nuclear industry, keep the little brown people in the 17th Century, and reduce most people in the US to a subsistence agricultural starvation diet?

"Progressives" are not for progress. They're cannibals, folks.


Don't forget that progressives want to create skynet to control humans and put them inti the matrix so robots can use us as batteries.
 
2012-08-06 12:28:30 PM  

Larva Lump: Galloping Galoshes

Kevin72: The_Sponge: ....and Schumer just lost the cat vote.

I read that as Schröedinger losing the cat vote. By the way, has anyone seen Schröedinger's cat recently?

Well, yes and no.

I never look at cats that are both dead and alive.

Free cat. Dealer prep, title, and taxes extra.


What about tags? Are tags included? Do you take trade-ins?
 
2012-08-06 12:30:04 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: way south: If he considers them to be destructive weapons then I believe they would fall under the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment is not a blanket authorization for anyone to own anything. You can't do bombs, automatic weapons without the correct license, etc. Laser pointers in the hands of children are dangerous.

/gun owner and 2nd amendment defender.


So you can own a weapon but not the means to aim it?
That goes against the intention of the 2nd amendment, which is to equip the people with competitive arms for war making purposes.
Lasers are the prime component in modern weapons for Zeroing, Aiming at close range, or as part of a holographic fire control system.
The accuracy we demand from modern firearms is difficult to achieve without them.

Moreover lasers have many constructive uses.
My argument isn't that they can't be misused, but that the good far exceeds the bad.
If the counter to this is that lasers have become dangerous, then yes they should fall under 2nd amendment protection as an emergent weapons technology.

Bear in mind that Schumer isn't talking about an "over 18" or regulation for responsibility. He wants to shove his fat prohibitionist fingers into blocking the market for more powerful scientific lasers. Ones that Children probably aren't purchasing and aiming at planes to begin with.

He isn't doing that for anyone's good but his own.
 
2012-08-06 12:33:23 PM  

way south: That goes against the intention of the 2nd amendment, which is to equip the people with competitive arms for war making purposes.


You'll need a few of these.
www.nps.gov
 
2012-08-06 12:36:08 PM  

way south: way south: So you can own a weapon but not the means to aim it?


way south: He wants to shove his fat prohibitionist fingers into blocking the market for more powerful scientific lasers.


You be contradicting yourself.

way south: Moreover lasers have many constructive uses.


Yes, I go shopping too, I use laser levels, etc. too. What about keeping the small ones that are the most misused out of kids hands?
 
2012-08-06 12:37:55 PM  

way south: So you can own a weapon but not the means to aim it?
That goes against the intention of the 2nd amendment, which is to equip the people with competitive arms for war making purposes.
Lasers are the prime component in modern weapons for Zeroing, Aiming at close range, or as part of a holographic fire control system.
The accuracy we demand from modern firearms is difficult to achieve without them.


I've been on Fark long enough to read some absurd things, but this really takes the cake.
 
2012-08-06 12:38:54 PM  

MrLint: Is he seriously saying that someone is shining a hand held laser at an airplane at a mile away.??


Actually, it happens a lot and it can be dangerous. The light from the laser, if it manages to hit the cockpit window, can spread out and obscure the pilot's view on landing, which is the most dangerous and the most visually dependent part of a flight operation.

It's rare that it'll cause a major incident, but it's still a problem.
 
2012-08-06 12:40:07 PM  

MrLint: Is he seriously saying that someone is shining a hand held laser at an airplane at a mile away.??


Happens all the time. Animals with better vision than humans do exist, but the human eye is remarkably good at picking out details. It's said that on a clear, dark night one could pick out a candle flame at 30 miles; airplane lights and lasers are much stronger than that, and the distance is much shorter (some 5-6 miles, assuming standard commercial cruising altitude). This is not to say that it's an easy thing to do, but it's quite doable.

I admit, however, that I've never understood the geometry of blinding an airplane pilot with a handheld laser from the ground. Helicopter pilots I understand, because helicopters often have at least some downward-facing glass, and you could shine a laser through something like that. But airplanes typically don't do that, and given the way most airplanes are shaped, I don't see any point on most airplane bodies that would reflect an incoming ground-based beam toward any upward-facing glass.

Is it possible that these lasers aren't literally blinding the pilot, but instead interfering with their instruments? I can see why that would be a problem; in fact, it would be only slightly less serious than actually blinding the pilot.
 
2012-08-06 12:42:32 PM  

way south: they should fall under 2nd amendment protection as an emergent weapons technology.


That's just stupid, and you're stupid for saying it. Are nuclear weapons protected under the 2nd? They were new at one time and the 2nd existed at that time. If your "logic" stands, shouldn't they be protected?
 
2012-08-06 12:43:58 PM  

Millennium: MrLint: Is he seriously saying that someone is shining a hand held laser at an airplane at a mile away.??

Happens all the time. Animals with better vision than humans do exist, but the human eye is remarkably good at picking out details. It's said that on a clear, dark night one could pick out a candle flame at 30 miles; airplane lights and lasers are much stronger than that, and the distance is much shorter (some 5-6 miles, assuming standard commercial cruising altitude). This is not to say that it's an easy thing to do, but it's quite doable.

I admit, however, that I've never understood the geometry of blinding an airplane pilot with a handheld laser from the ground. Helicopter pilots I understand, because helicopters often have at least some downward-facing glass, and you could shine a laser through something like that. But airplanes typically don't do that, and given the way most airplanes are shaped, I don't see any point on most airplane bodies that would reflect an incoming ground-based beam toward any upward-facing glass.

Is it possible that these lasers aren't literally blinding the pilot, but instead interfering with their instruments? I can see why that would be a problem; in fact, it would be only slightly less serious than actually blinding the pilot.


Maybe they're lasering them during takeoff and landing, when the cockpits are much closer to vertical. That's probably the only way it makes sense.
 
2012-08-06 12:47:35 PM  

qorkfiend: Millennium: MrLint: Is he seriously saying that someone is shining a hand held laser at an airplane at a mile away.??

Happens all the time. Animals with better vision than humans do exist, but the human eye is remarkably good at picking out details. It's said that on a clear, dark night one could pick out a candle flame at 30 miles; airplane lights and lasers are much stronger than that, and the distance is much shorter (some 5-6 miles, assuming standard commercial cruising altitude). This is not to say that it's an easy thing to do, but it's quite doable.

I admit, however, that I've never understood the geometry of blinding an airplane pilot with a handheld laser from the ground. Helicopter pilots I understand, because helicopters often have at least some downward-facing glass, and you could shine a laser through something like that. But airplanes typically don't do that, and given the way most airplanes are shaped, I don't see any point on most airplane bodies that would reflect an incoming ground-based beam toward any upward-facing glass.

Is it possible that these lasers aren't literally blinding the pilot, but instead interfering with their instruments? I can see why that would be a problem; in fact, it would be only slightly less serious than actually blinding the pilot.

Maybe they're lasering them during takeoff and landing, when the cockpits are much closer to vertical. That's probably the only way it makes sense.


During T/O and landing it'll be possible to hit the window. When the light hits the window, it spreads out over the glass, hence the problem.

Laser hitting what appears to be a C172. Notice how it appears to spread when it hits the glass.
 
2012-08-06 12:50:41 PM  

heinekenftw: qorkfiend: Millennium: MrLint: Is he seriously saying that someone is shining a hand held laser at an airplane at a mile away.??

Happens all the time. Animals with better vision than humans do exist, but the human eye is remarkably good at picking out details. It's said that on a clear, dark night one could pick out a candle flame at 30 miles; airplane lights and lasers are much stronger than that, and the distance is much shorter (some 5-6 miles, assuming standard commercial cruising altitude). This is not to say that it's an easy thing to do, but it's quite doable.

I admit, however, that I've never understood the geometry of blinding an airplane pilot with a handheld laser from the ground. Helicopter pilots I understand, because helicopters often have at least some downward-facing glass, and you could shine a laser through something like that. But airplanes typically don't do that, and given the way most airplanes are shaped, I don't see any point on most airplane bodies that would reflect an incoming ground-based beam toward any upward-facing glass.

Is it possible that these lasers aren't literally blinding the pilot, but instead interfering with their instruments? I can see why that would be a problem; in fact, it would be only slightly less serious than actually blinding the pilot.

Maybe they're lasering them during takeoff and landing, when the cockpits are much closer to vertical. That's probably the only way it makes sense.

During T/O and landing it'll be possible to hit the window. When the light hits the window, it spreads out over the glass, hence the problem.

Laser hitting what appears to be a C172. Notice how it appears to spread when it hits the glass.


Yikes. Yeah, takeoff and landing are definitely points during the flight where you want the pilots reflexively shielding their eyes.
 
2012-08-06 12:57:22 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: Kevin72: The chemtrails just hang there.

So they have some wind-defying technology deployable in mist-size droplets?


Yes.
 
2012-08-06 12:57:24 PM  

qorkfiend: Maybe they're lasering them during takeoff and landing, when the cockpits are much closer to vertical.


No they're not. You might have 10% deck angle initially, until you put in flaps. And at takeoff, you're looking at clouds, not the ground.

I can see a coke machine on the front porch of an FBO at 20 miles, because it's the only spot of light in a dark area (It's the only light on the airfield until I key the lights).

Millennium: Is it possible that these lasers aren't literally blinding the pilot, but instead interfering with their instruments? I can see why that would be a problem; in fact, it would be only slightly less serious than actually blinding the pilot.


No, it's not. There are no instruments on an aircraft that would be interfered with. They use ram air pressure, static air pressure, and RF.

heinekenftw: Laser hitting what appears to be a C172. Notice how it appears to spread when it hits the glass.


It's illuminating the crazing in the windscreen. That would really dazzle you when you're flying at night and your eyes have adjusted.
 
2012-08-06 01:00:28 PM  

Kevin72: Galloping Galoshes: Kevin72: The chemtrails just hang there.

So they have some wind-defying technology deployable in mist-size droplets?

Yes.


He's not saying it's aliens, but...
 
2012-08-06 01:00:42 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: qorkfiend: Maybe they're lasering them during takeoff and landing, when the cockpits are much closer to vertical.

No they're not. You might have 10% deck angle initially, until you put in flaps. And at takeoff, you're looking at clouds, not the ground.

I can see a coke machine on the front porch of an FBO at 20 miles, because it's the only spot of light in a dark area (It's the only light on the airfield until I key the lights).


So how does the geometry work, then? How do you shine a laser pointer into the cockpit of an airplane at 30,000 feet?
 
2012-08-06 01:00:52 PM  

Kevin72: Galloping Galoshes: Kevin72: The chemtrails just hang there.

So they have some wind-defying technology deployable in mist-size droplets?

Yes.


Here's your tin-foil hat. Those are ice crystals. I know, I've made some. Depending on the temperature and relative humidity, they can evaporate immediately or hang around for hours. They tend to hang around (and spread out) when there's a high pressure system in place. Because the pressure difference is relatively slight for a given distance, there's little wind, so the stuff doesn't move much, it just spreads out. You're up at cirrus cloud altitudes, so they behave like artificial cirrus clouds.
 
2012-08-06 01:01:32 PM  

qorkfiend: Galloping Galoshes: qorkfiend: Maybe they're lasering them during takeoff and landing, when the cockpits are much closer to vertical.

No they're not. You might have 10% deck angle initially, until you put in flaps. And at takeoff, you're looking at clouds, not the ground.

I can see a coke machine on the front porch of an FBO at 20 miles, because it's the only spot of light in a dark area (It's the only light on the airfield until I key the lights).

So how does the geometry work, then? How do you shine a laser pointer into the cockpit of an airplane at 30,000 feet?

 
2012-08-06 01:05:01 PM  

qorkfiend: So how does the geometry work, then? How do you shine a laser pointer into the cockpit of an airplane at 30,000 feet?


That's generally not a problem. It's the ones at 1000 - 5000 ft (500 if you're a whirlybird pilot). That's light plane and approach altitude. And you don't have to hold it on the cockpit, (you're not Goldfinger trying to burn 007 in half) you only have to pass the beam over the windscreen, and it flashes the pilots.

/The ones at FL 300 are in cruise, and at least one of the pilots is generally asleep anyway.
//or in the bathroom.
 
2012-08-06 01:10:18 PM  

qorkfiend: Galloping Galoshes: qorkfiend: Maybe they're lasering them during takeoff and landing, when the cockpits are much closer to vertical.

No they're not. You might have 10% deck angle initially, until you put in flaps. And at takeoff, you're looking at clouds, not the ground.

I can see a coke machine on the front porch of an FBO at 20 miles, because it's the only spot of light in a dark area (It's the only light on the airfield until I key the lights).

So how does the geometry work, then? How do you shine a laser pointer into the cockpit of an airplane at 30,000 feet?


You don't. No one said you did.
 
2012-08-06 01:11:19 PM  
So there's a conservation of stupidly disproportionate response here, or something, now that it's been conclusively demonstrated that it doesn't work with gun crime they're going to apply the same "solution" to different crimes until it actually mitigates one in some fashion?

//Isn't this literally one of the definitions of insanity?
 
2012-08-06 01:13:54 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: Kevin72: Galloping Galoshes: Kevin72: The chemtrails just hang there.

So they have some wind-defying technology deployable in mist-size droplets?

Yes.

Here's your tin-foil hat. Those are ice crystals. I know, I've made some. Depending on the temperature and relative humidity, they can evaporate immediately or hang around for hours. They tend to hang around (and spread out) when there's a high pressure system in place. Because the pressure difference is relatively slight for a given distance, there's little wind, so the stuff doesn't move much, it just spreads out. You're up at cirrus cloud altitudes, so they behave like artificial cirrus clouds.


What the thing he is talking about might look like:
www.cosmosmagazine.com

/secretly antidepressants from lizard people conspirators
 
2012-08-06 01:19:32 PM  

thurstonxhowell: qorkfiend: Galloping Galoshes: qorkfiend: Maybe they're lasering them during takeoff and landing, when the cockpits are much closer to vertical.

No they're not. You might have 10% deck angle initially, until you put in flaps. And at takeoff, you're looking at clouds, not the ground.

I can see a coke machine on the front porch of an FBO at 20 miles, because it's the only spot of light in a dark area (It's the only light on the airfield until I key the lights).

So how does the geometry work, then? How do you shine a laser pointer into the cockpit of an airplane at 30,000 feet?

You don't. No one said you did.


Right. At 30,000 it's impossible to laser an aircraft's window. The problem isn't at cruise altitude. It's at t/o and landing.

Maybe for light aircraft buzzing around at 2-3k feet, but mostly t/o and landing.
 
2012-08-06 01:47:16 PM  
chemtrails

[SA]HatfulOfHollow: i'm going to become rich and famous after i invent a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet
 
2012-08-06 01:54:56 PM  
Has anyone else noticed that the news on the Clear Channel websites (like this one) contain some of the crappiest examples of journalism I've ever seen.
 
2012-08-06 02:09:34 PM  

Citrate1007: It's better than the tea bagger bible pounders who get bored and have been writing penis-goes-where legislation because the only way to preserve Freedom is through Big Government Fascism.

/why not just make it a serious crime to point them at airplanes instead of banning them?


It already is, which is why people are getting arrested for it. But that's not good enough for guys like Schumer. If something is capable of being misused, then rather than prosecuting the misuse he'd rather just ban it for everybody. Much easier, and if it limits you, fark you, that's why.
 
2012-08-06 02:14:56 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: You'll need a few of these.


thurstonxhowell: Are nuclear weapons protected under the 2nd?


Hellooo strawman!
Actually, even tho quite a few people own missiles these days I doubt anyone would drop enough cash to buy a matching nuke, even if a company was allowed to sell them. So its a meaningless hook for repealing a right that is focused on protecting the small arms market.

Galloping Galoshes: You be contradicting yourself.


Not if you follow my argument.
Mounted lasers are often used for fire control or alignment (Which I believe should fall under the keeping of arms). There are also more powerful kinds which are used for various purposes (etching, surveying, adaptive optics, popping balloons, data recovery, SCIENCE!, etc...). Their cost can range into the hundreds of dollars. With how things are advancing, they could soon become arms themselves.
Then we have the cheap party favors and office pointers that kids get their hands on most often... which Schumer seems to consider the only legitimate use.

With no evidence of airliners being downed by kids at play with the more expensive toys, He's seeking a solution to a problem that does not exist.
 
2012-08-06 02:18:35 PM  

incendi: Does the Food and Drug Administration actually have the power to mandate warning labels on things that are not even remotely foods or drugs?

Serious question, they may, it just seems a bit out of their jurisdiction.


In the past (about ten years ago) I had to prove an electronic device I was submitting for regulatory approval had LEDs that were LEDs. Seem kinda funny, but I had to show these potentially eye destroying products did not exceed certain levels at certain frequencies - that they were NOT high power lasers but ordinary LEDs. This was covered by an FDA standard. I just looked over some some newer laser transceiver data sheets I have lying around and the devices typically claim compliance to EN60825 (Europe) or IEC 825 (most everywhere else, same thing) or 21CFR 1040.10 and .11 (US - refers to FDA). I thought it was odd too...I guess they flipped a coin. Heads and it's FCC and tails it's FDA...
 
2012-08-06 02:19:41 PM  

way south: Philip Francis Queeg: You'll need a few of these.

thurstonxhowell: Are nuclear weapons protected under the 2nd?

Hellooo strawman!
Actually, even tho quite a few people own missiles these days I doubt anyone would drop enough cash to buy a matching nuke, even if a company was allowed to sell them. So its a meaningless hook for repealing a right that is focused on protecting the small arms market.


Yeah, your small arms aren't going to be very competitive against a modern army, Rambo.
 
2012-08-06 02:26:50 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Kevin72: Galloping Galoshes: Kevin72: While I am completely against shining laser pointers at commercial and military aircraft, I think we should go all-out at laserpointing aircraft spraying chemtrails on us. Since the government insists they don't exist, no harm done shining it at a non-existent chemtrail sprayer.

I'm sorry, but (taking a chance that I'm feeding a troll) WTF are you talking about? Crop dusting?

No, planes that are not leaving contrails that soon dissipate, but rather spray a white substance that expands from its trail and lingers for hours. Whatever government operation does this, it's like off and on. Sometimes they'll go apeshiat like the last time I was in Death Valley where it used to be always pure blue skies, sprayed some days til it was all white. But those aren't clouds, clouds move. The chemtrails just hang there.

They do that so that you can't see the UFO mothership.


I thought it was to pollute our precious bodily fluids.
 
2012-08-06 02:31:59 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: way south: Philip Francis Queeg: You'll need a few of these.

thurstonxhowell: Are nuclear weapons protected under the 2nd?

Hellooo strawman!
Actually, even tho quite a few people own missiles these days I doubt anyone would drop enough cash to buy a matching nuke, even if a company was allowed to sell them. So its a meaningless hook for repealing a right that is focused on protecting the small arms market.

Yeah, your small arms aren't going to be very competitive against a modern army, Rambo.


That was sarcasm, right!? (I'm assuming so) That is a funny/very odd argument people make sometimes. Like it's insane to have the 1st amendment when you can't overscream a public address system, therefor your rights are silly and totally invalid.
 
2012-08-06 02:32:57 PM  
Pointers used to be a valuable way to quickly and easily point out objects in the night sky to newbies. Why does Chuck hate amateur astronomy?

Seriously though, these idiot plane laserers (is that a word?) ruined it for the rest of us.
 
2012-08-06 02:34:22 PM  

Big_Fat_Liar: Philip Francis Queeg: way south: Philip Francis Queeg: You'll need a few of these.

thurstonxhowell: Are nuclear weapons protected under the 2nd?

Hellooo strawman!
Actually, even tho quite a few people own missiles these days I doubt anyone would drop enough cash to buy a matching nuke, even if a company was allowed to sell them. So its a meaningless hook for repealing a right that is focused on protecting the small arms market.

Yeah, your small arms aren't going to be very competitive against a modern army, Rambo.

That was sarcasm, right!? (I'm assuming so) That is a funny/very odd argument people make sometimes. Like it's insane to have the 1st amendment when you can't overscream a public address system, therefor your rights are silly and totally invalid.


If you are looking for silliness, you might want to look at the guy who is claiming that he needs a laser sight so that he can be armed competitively with the US Army.
 
2012-08-06 02:49:34 PM  

way south: With no evidence of airliners being downed by kids at play with the more expensive toys, He's seeking a solution to a problem that does not exist.


The problem does exist. I'm not advocating a ban on laser pointers, but the problem does exist. Sure, we haven't had a major incident . . . yet . . . involving an airliner, but simply because it hasn't yet happened, doesn't mean it won't. The potential for an accident is there, especially if it occurs during a heavy workload phase such as t/o and landing.
 
2012-08-06 03:16:43 PM  

heinekenftw: way south: With no evidence of airliners being downed by kids at play with the more expensive toys, He's seeking a solution to a problem that does not exist.

The problem does exist. I'm not advocating a ban on laser pointers, but the problem does exist. Sure, we haven't had a major incident . . . yet . . . involving an airliner, but simply because it hasn't yet happened, doesn't mean it won't. The potential for an accident is there, especially if it occurs during a heavy workload phase such as t/o and landing.


Eventually, some wiseacre will get the idea to flash-mob laser pointers at an airliner. Several dozen hand held pointers could probably force an abort of a landing.
 
2012-08-06 03:41:05 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Yeah, your small arms aren't going to be very competitive against a modern army, Rambo.


Which is why the army sold all of its useless guns to focus everything on nuclear warfare.
...Oh, wait, I meant to say they've done exactly the opposite of that because apparently the last few wars were fought street to street and door to door.


heinekenftw: simply because it hasn't yet happened, doesn't mean it won't.


jafiwam: Eventually, some wiseacre will get the idea to flash-mob laser pointers at an airliner. Several dozen hand held pointers could probably force an abort of a landing.


I'm not as certain, because airliners are becoming increasingly reliant on automation. So the crews aren't depending on what is outside the window as much as they are on the ILS and Autopilot.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that if it ever became a real problem they'd flip down their laser safety goggles and ride the radio signal down, same as normal.
 
2012-08-06 03:56:56 PM  

way south: Philip Francis Queeg: Yeah, your small arms aren't going to be very competitive against a modern army, Rambo.

Which is why the army sold all of its useless guns to focus everything on nuclear warfare.
...Oh, wait, I meant to say they've done exactly the opposite of that because apparently the last few wars were fought street to street and door to door.



Yep, you'll take down an armored division with artillery and air support with your small arms. They've already ,made a documentary about your heroic victory.

content9.flixster.com
 
2012-08-06 05:46:11 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Big_Fat_Liar: Philip Francis Queeg: way south: Philip Francis Queeg: You'll need a few of these.

thurstonxhowell: Are nuclear weapons protected under the 2nd?

Hellooo strawman!
Actually, even tho quite a few people own missiles these days I doubt anyone would drop enough cash to buy a matching nuke, even if a company was allowed to sell them. So its a meaningless hook for repealing a right that is focused on protecting the small arms market.

Yeah, your small arms aren't going to be very competitive against a modern army, Rambo.

That was sarcasm, right!? (I'm assuming so) That is a funny/very odd argument people make sometimes. Like it's insane to have the 1st amendment when you can't overscream a public address system, therefor your rights are silly and totally invalid.

If you are looking for silliness, you might want to look at the guy who is claiming that he needs a laser sight so that he can be armed competitively with the US Army.


So, serious then? ohhhh......backing out of thread very slowly....no sudden moves....
 
2012-08-06 07:23:50 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: They've already ,made a documentary about your heroic victory.


Seen it.
dl.dropbox.com
Found the ending to be... inaccurate.



/I thought Swayze was better in Dirty Dancing.
 
2012-08-06 07:34:20 PM  

Victoly: chemtrails

[SA]HatfulOfHollow: i'm going to become rich and famous after i invent a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet


Voted person most likely to be indoors all day on the computer and to never see the skies.
 
2012-08-06 07:59:36 PM  

way south: Philip Francis Queeg: They've already ,made a documentary about your heroic victory.

Seen it.
[dl.dropbox.com image 220x331]
Found the ending to be... inaccurate.



Gee, and I thought the ending to both those movies was the loser getting a bayonet up the ass.
 
2012-08-07 07:18:14 AM  
yeah, chuck. lets put warning lables on the things so that the millions of people who would have never thought of using it that way now know that they can be used in that manner with next to zero chance of ever being found.
 
2012-08-07 07:22:48 AM  

way south: Philip Francis Queeg: They've already ,made a documentary about your heroic victory.

Seen it.
[dl.dropbox.com image 220x331]
Found the ending to be... inaccurate.

/I thought Swayze was better in Dirty Dancing.


What major alliance of nations will be launching airstrikes on your behalf?
 
2012-08-07 07:50:27 AM  

thurstonxhowell: dittybopper: It's interesting to see that Chuck Schumer is going after laser pointers, instead of guns. There was a time where he was Mr. Gun Control personified. I guess he doesn't want his party to lose the White House.

I'm pretty sure he did other things occasionally even when he was advocating for more gun control. Do you also find it interesting when he's eating dinner and not advocating for gun control?


Given his record? Yes.

But I was wrong, btw: He slipped in a rider to the "Cybersecurity Act" that would have banned magazines with over 10 round capacity.

It's nice to know that in this ever changing world, there is some constancy.
 
2012-08-07 11:35:12 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: way south: Philip Francis Queeg: They've already ,made a documentary about your heroic victory.

Seen it.
[dl.dropbox.com image 220x331]
Found the ending to be... inaccurate.

/I thought Swayze was better in Dirty Dancing.

What major alliance of nations will be launching airstrikes on your behalf?


You ask alot of questions about a conflict that hasnt happened yet.
Shouldn't you be over is Syria assuring Assad that his tankers have that one in the bag?
 
Displayed 45 of 95 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | 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