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.

(Some Guy)   CNN says it's way too early to say if LGBT volunteer's carrying Chick-Fil-a bag and automatic weapon into conservative group's headquarters is politically motivated   (jammiewf.com) divider line 368
    More: Fail, Family Research Council, CNN, LGBT, Research Council, deadly weapon, volunteers  
•       •       •

6490 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Aug 2012 at 11:08 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-08-16 10:42:10 AM
So it's only relevant to point out links when someone idiot on the left does it yet how dare anyone mention such links when the idiot is a tea bagger, right?

/your blog sucks
 
2012-08-16 10:49:09 AM
Really? You're going to greenlight this jammie-wearing retard's blog?

You should sit in the corner and feel bad, Fark.
 
2012-08-16 11:08:25 AM
This link is bad!

AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD!
 
2012-08-16 11:09:49 AM
The suspect's weapon was a legally obtained 9 mm handgun, according to another law enforcement official.

I doubt he had a legally obtained 9mm automatic handgun, not too many of those.
 
2012-08-16 11:10:07 AM
nutbags are nutbags. Was it politically motivated? yep. so right wing has nuts. left wing has nuts. the only real constant is that CNN sucks and must serve their high overlord, liberals
 
2012-08-16 11:10:13 AM
This blog is bad.
 
2012-08-16 11:10:19 AM
I figured this was just an isolated incident of one nutjob. There's no politics in play when it is a crazy person.
 
2012-08-16 11:10:31 AM
www.angryflower.com
 
2012-08-16 11:10:42 AM
I'm sure everyone agrees now that guns should be controlled because when angry liberals have them the world is over.
 
2012-08-16 11:11:01 AM
That's because they are part of the driveby-lamestream-liberal-fartbama-media-conspiracy!!! why can't you sheeple see that??!?
 
2012-08-16 11:11:30 AM

Whichever modmin is responsible for jammiewf:

YOUR BLOG SUCKS
 
2012-08-16 11:11:32 AM
From the blog posting

They're shocked-shocked!-to discover their angry, hate-filled rhetoric has resulted in violence. Knock me over with a feather boa.

Perhaps, were the author to identify specific "angry, hate-filled rhetoric", the author's claims and conclusions would be more viable.
 
2012-08-16 11:12:21 AM
Nope, he was just crazy. And this is a terrible time to mention guns, you people are heartless.
 
2012-08-16 11:12:21 AM
Yes, the LGBT community is so well known for their angry, hateful rhetoric inciting violence. duh.
 
2012-08-16 11:12:23 AM

bulldg4life: There's no politics in play when it is a crazy person.


Bingo. If you decide you really don't like Democrats or Republicans because your Cheerios told you bad things about one of the groups it's not important which group you sided with.
 
2012-08-16 11:12:30 AM
What I'm wondering is this:

The more vocal contigent on the right is quite scared of many things - libruls, gays, muslins, etc - and they are known for being pants-wetting cowards.

They, as masters of projection, may be projecting their willingness to be cowed in attempts to scare others ("we came unarmed this time").

Will this shooting cause them to back off? Not saying that is a good thing, but I wonder what their reaction will be.
 
2012-08-16 11:12:50 AM
I stopped reading at clowns. By the responses here, I'm glad I did.
 
2012-08-16 11:13:23 AM
For the last farking time:

APOSTROPHES ARE NOT USED TO PLURALIZE NOUNS!!

Jesus tapdancing tittyfarking Christ, Subby!



/Oh, and link is full of fail.
 
2012-08-16 11:13:29 AM
Before we all jump on the condemnation bandwagon, let's remember that other people have done much worse things. While I don't condone his shooting of innocent people, at least he wasn't rude to a Chick-fil-a worker in the drive-thru window.
 
2012-08-16 11:13:58 AM
It's funny watching LIBS! Romney.
 
2012-08-16 11:14:18 AM

zedster: The suspect's weapon was a legally obtained 9 mm handgun, according to another law enforcement official.

I doubt he had a legally obtained 9mm automatic handgun, not too many of those.


A 9mm AK-47?
 
2012-08-16 11:14:40 AM

CommieTaoist: /your blog sucks

 
2012-08-16 11:14:41 AM
The volunteer's what?
 
2012-08-16 11:14:42 AM
But but... I was told by Fox and the NRA that all liberals are pussies who piss ourselves in fear if we so much as look at a gun.
 
2012-08-16 11:14:59 AM
it was a politically motivated action.
 
2012-08-16 11:15:13 AM
A huge, black, gay man with a gun?

Pretty much the nightmare scenario in Jesusland.
 
2012-08-16 11:15:20 AM
He kinda has a point...

...but it's hidden behind derp.
 
2012-08-16 11:15:20 AM
If CNN has an article about this why are we linking some shiatty blog?
 
2012-08-16 11:15:30 AM
I'm pretty conservative. Most here would think I'm very conservative.

It's annoying as all hell when some nutjob is associated with a conservative movement.

It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say this nutjob is associated with the gay marriage movement.

he's just crazy. Our various disagreements are not affected. Abortion's wrongfulness is not alleviated when some monster bombs a clinic. Gabby Giffords doesn't become right about politics when some monster shoots her. The Gay marriage movement shouldn't be ashamed of some nutjob.

This should be obvious, and I hope the right doesn't make hay out of this psycho. But I also hope the left doesn't make hay when it has the chance. It's annoying as hell.
 
2012-08-16 11:15:32 AM
Maybe he was just doing that moral exchange thing people were talking about. You know, you eat at Chik-Fil-a and then donate money to a pro-gay group. He just decided to shoot up some anti-gay people instead.

Also, can anyone think of another instance of an angry crazy liberal shooting up anything? This may be the first time.
 
2012-08-16 11:15:54 AM
The guy could have been wearing a Eugene Debs for President t-shirt and it would still be too early for CNN.
 
2012-08-16 11:16:22 AM

zedster: The suspect's weapon was a legally obtained 9 mm handgun, according to another law enforcement official.

I doubt he had a legally obtained 9mm automatic handgun, not too many of those.


When used to refer to handguns, 'automatic' can mean semiautomatic. No, this doesn't really make sense, but there you go.
 
2012-08-16 11:16:31 AM
Now that CNN secretly hired James O'Keefe, they need to check their payroll paper trail before committing to that story. It's all about the journalistic financial integrity.
 
2012-08-16 11:16:41 AM

WTF Indeed: I'm sure everyone agrees now that guns should be controlled because when angry liberals have them the world is over.


This is not the time to talk about gun control. We need to wait until we have a few days without a gun death.
 
2012-08-16 11:16:46 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: [www.angryflower.com image 600x331]


If you're talking about the headline, the apostrophe in "volunteer's" is correct. "Carrying" is a noun the way it's used here.
 
2012-08-16 11:17:12 AM

RedThree: What I'm wondering is this:

The more vocal contigent on the right is quite scared of many things - libruls, gays, muslins, etc - and they are known for being pants-wetting cowards.

They, as masters of projection, may be projecting their willingness to be cowed in attempts to scare others ("we came unarmed this time").

Will this shooting cause them to back off? Not saying that is a good thing, but I wonder what their reaction will be.


No, the really crazy among them could retaliate.

Free Republic thought it was the beginning of a purge of RW thought.
 
2012-08-16 11:17:47 AM

zedster: I doubt he had a legally obtained 9mm automatic handgun, not too many of those.


I'm always amazed at how few peopole konw the dirfference between "Semi-Automatic" and "Automatic".

It's very simple, folks...If more than one bullet comes out when you squeeze the trigger once (a la Robocop), only then is it an "automatic".
 
2012-08-16 11:18:38 AM

RedThree: What I'm wondering is this:

The more vocal contigent on the right is quite scared of many things - libruls, gays, muslins, etc - and they are known for being pants-wetting cowards.

They, as masters of projection, may be projecting their willingness to be cowed in attempts to scare others ("we came unarmed this time").

Will this shooting cause them to back off? Not saying that is a good thing, but I wonder what their reaction will be.


You sound deranged. But your reaction is noted.

No, I do not think people are going to change their political views out of fear of gunmen from the gay rights movement. That would be silly.

I think the Chik Fil A thing is that people want the right to have their conservative views without democrat mayors becoming fascists about it. It's none of their business what someone's political views are.

If someone wants to protest those views, that's what America's all about. If someone wants to shut down businesses with the 'wrong' opinions, that is a different matter. And if someone is musing about violence scaring people out of expressing their opinions, they are deranged.
 
2012-08-16 11:18:49 AM

sprawl15


zedster: The suspect's weapon was a legally obtained 9 mm handgun, according to another law enforcement official.

I doubt he had a legally obtained 9mm automatic handgun, not too many of those.

A 9mm AK-47?


You big dummy! It was a 9mm GLOCK-47.
 
2012-08-16 11:19:00 AM
I'm shocked that the Family Research Council, a "hate group" according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, is causing hate. Hate begets hate. Don't put it out there if you don't want it back.
 
2012-08-16 11:19:21 AM
Can we stop calling a pistol an "automatic weapon" now, please?
 
2012-08-16 11:19:23 AM

Arcanum: It's annoying as all hell when some nutjob is associated with a conservative movement.


You mean the entire FRC?
 
2012-08-16 11:19:39 AM
When is this one scheduled to get yanked, Fark?
 
2012-08-16 11:20:09 AM
there are a LOT of leftists on here. i'm going back to slashdot so I can find my center.
 
2012-08-16 11:20:14 AM

BitwiseShift


Now that CNN secretly hired James O'Keefe


"How much Keefe?"

"James O'Keefe!"


Nah, it doesn't work.
 
2012-08-16 11:20:25 AM

Voiceofreason01: If CNN has an article about this why are we linking some shiatty blog?


Because either someone at Fark is directly making money off of this, or they're intentionally trolling us.

Either way, it's f*cking stupid.
 
2012-08-16 11:20:34 AM

CommieTaoist: So it's only relevant to point out links when someone idiot on the left does it yet how dare anyone mention such links when the idiot is a tea bagger, right?

/your blog sucks


Can you please point out when there was a politically motivated attack perpetuated by someone who was politically active in conservative politics?
 
2012-08-16 11:20:51 AM

odinsposse: Maybe he was just doing that moral exchange thing people were talking about. You know, you eat at Chik-Fil-a and then donate money to a pro-gay group. He just decided to shoot up some anti-gay people instead.

Also, can anyone think of another instance of an angry crazy liberal shooting up anything? This may be the first time.


I'm pretty sure the guy who shot up the Discovery Channel a few years ago was an environmental militant.

Much of the violence associted with the left ended after the 60s when the left more or less won the "culture war" via the courts.
 
2012-08-16 11:20:53 AM
Another shooting that likely would have been stopped by better funding of mental health facilities.
 
2012-08-16 11:20:56 AM

Highroller48: For the last farking time:

APOSTROPHES ARE NOT USED TO PLURALIZE NOUNS!!

Jesu's tapdancing tittyfarking Christ, Subby!


FTFY
 
2012-08-16 11:21:06 AM
As a liberal, I feel sad about this. Conservatives can walk into any place and kill anyone they want, just look at Dr. Tiller. They are so much better at this than we are.
 
2012-08-16 11:21:13 AM

zcat: If you're talking about the headline, the apostrophe in "volunteer's" is correct. "Carrying" is a noun the way it's used here.


You must be the subby, because no.

FTFH: CNN says it's way too early to say if LGBT volunteer is carrying Chick-Fil-a bag and automatic weapon into conservative group's headquarters is politically motivated.

If that makes sense to you, you might be a moron.
 
2012-08-16 11:21:14 AM

Roughing The Snapper: The volunteer's what?


Carrying. It's correct.
 
2012-08-16 11:21:23 AM

Highroller48: I'm always amazed at how few peopole konw the dirfference between "Semi-Automatic" and "Automatic".

It's very simple, folks...If more than one bullet comes out when you squeeze the trigger once (a la Robocop), only then is it an "automatic".


Technically speaking, 'automatic' in reference to a handgun can mean semi-automatic. It refers to automatic loading (rather than automatic firing like colloquially used), is in contrast to revolvers or derringers.
 
2012-08-16 11:21:27 AM

malaktaus: When used to refer to handguns, 'automatic' can mean semiautomatic. No, this doesn't really make sense, but there you go.


It's a pretty archaic usage. Most people avoid it because of the ambiguity. It seems more likely that subby just doesn't know gun nomenclature very well.
 
2012-08-16 11:21:46 AM

malaktaus: zedster: The suspect's weapon was a legally obtained 9 mm handgun, according to another law enforcement official.

I doubt he had a legally obtained 9mm automatic handgun, not too many of those.

When used to refer to handguns, 'automatic' can mean semiautomatic.


No, it really can't. True, it's become common to do so, but it's still technically wrong.
 
2012-08-16 11:22:09 AM

LasersHurt: Yes, the LGBT community is so well known for their angry, hateful rhetoric inciting violence. duh.



Billy's not a real transsexual, but he thinks he is. He tries to be. He's tried to be a lot of things, I expect.
 
2012-08-16 11:22:14 AM
question for the arm chair lawyers out there. If CNN said the shooting was politically motivated and it was later proved not to be would they be liable for anything?
 
2012-08-16 11:22:25 AM

jbuist: Bingo. If you decide you really don't like Democrats or Republicans because your Cheerios told you bad things about one of the groups it's not important which group you sided with.


To be fair, I don't think this is an out and out looney bins crazy person. I think it was a person at the far end of the spectrum, no doubt, but there were obviously political leanings there.

The point being, I can admit that there are crazy people will all sorts of political views. They are horrible people that have no place in our society.

Meanwhile, there are people that have spent time on Fark arguing that Eric Robert Rudolph wasn't religious or right-wing because they need to defend "their team"
 
2012-08-16 11:22:44 AM
While this blogger is projecting the actions/beliefs of one individual to an entire community... That's pretty much what every single group with an agenda does, left or right.

For everyone's preaching about how their group alone is the one full of kindness and light, it doesn't stop any of them from cutting me off on the highway when they're in a hurry. People are just idiots no matter if they have Coexist bumper stickers or Jesus Fish bumper stickers.

Everyone wants to be outraged, no one wants to discuss differences.
 
2012-08-16 11:22:51 AM

Biness: nutbags are nutbags. Was it politically motivated? yep. so right wing has nuts. left wing has nuts. the only real constant is that CNN sucks and must serve their high overlord, liberals


You sound cute. Are you a catcher?
 
2012-08-16 11:22:55 AM
Nutjobs attacking nutjobs. Apparently it's open season.

/daffyduck.gif
 
2012-08-16 11:23:21 AM

meanmutton: Can you please point out when there was a politically motivated attack perpetuated by someone who was politically active in conservative politics?


You say this as thought it would be hard to point out...
 
2012-08-16 11:23:30 AM

tuxq: there are a LOT of leftists on here. i'm going back to slashdot so I can find my center.


You Apple lover
 
2012-08-16 11:23:53 AM
Whenever a left wing crazy fails, the link is always blamed. It's the link's fault.

/not subby

I figured this was just an isolated incident of one nutjob. There's no politics in play when it is a crazy person.

There's no politics in play unless it is a right winger tea party white guy white pride hick. Then it is a national dilemma. Everybody panic. They are everywhere.

There will be no further discussion in the media about this shooter. If he could be described as a Repubican, we would know everything about his entire life in 24 hours via the media.
 
2012-08-16 11:24:04 AM
When you actively work to restrict someone from life's greatest aspect, love, you may see a less than peachy response. Honestly for such a repressed group it does make me wonder how they have maintained an incredibly peaceful (with very rare exceptions) civil rights approach. Yet those that are doing the oppression are allowed to spew their hate and vitriol with relative impunity because they hide behind a book about a religion that they know nothing about.
 
2012-08-16 11:24:07 AM

meanmutton: CommieTaoist: So it's only relevant to point out links when someone idiot on the left does it yet how dare anyone mention such links when the idiot is a tea bagger, right?

/your blog sucks

Can you please point out when there was a politically motivated attack perpetuated by someone who was politically active in conservative politics?


Every single abortion clinic shooting, bombing and assassination.
 
2012-08-16 11:24:22 AM

sprawl15: Highroller48: I'm always amazed at how few peopole konw the dirfference between "Semi-Automatic" and "Automatic".

It's very simple, folks...If more than one bullet comes out when you squeeze the trigger once (a la Robocop), only then is it an "automatic".

Technically speaking, 'automatic' in reference to a handgun can mean semi-automatic. It refers to automatic loading (rather than automatic firing like colloquially used), is in contrast to revolvers or derringers.


I can't agree here. The term has become bastardized by misuse when it comes to handuns. That doesn't mean it's correct to call a semi weapon "automatic".
 
2012-08-16 11:24:25 AM
well if they support traditional family values, that means they are hate-mongers and should be destroyed.
totally justifiable.
 
2012-08-16 11:25:03 AM

zedster: The suspect's weapon was a legally obtained 9 mm handgun, according to another law enforcement official.

I doubt he had a legally obtained 9mm automatic handgun, not too many of those.


Actually, you know nothing about guns and almost all 9mm's are "automatics". This means "semi-automatic". One trigger pull = 1 round fired = "automatic". The more you know, libtards.
 
2012-08-16 11:25:45 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: zcat: If you're talking about the headline, the apostrophe in "volunteer's" is correct. "Carrying" is a noun the way it's used here.

You must be the subby, because no.

FTFH: CNN says it's way too early to say if LGBT volunteer is carrying Chick-Fil-a bag and automatic weapon into conservative group's headquarters is politically motivated.

If that makes sense to you, you might be a moron.


Apostrophes are also used for possessives. The act of carrying [the bag and gun] belongs to the volunteer.
 
2012-08-16 11:25:50 AM

Highroller48: malaktaus: zedster: The suspect's weapon was a legally obtained 9 mm handgun, according to another law enforcement official.

I doubt he had a legally obtained 9mm automatic handgun, not too many of those.

When used to refer to handguns, 'automatic' can mean semiautomatic.

No, it really can't. True, it's become common to do so, but it's still technically wrong.


No, he's right, and it isn't new. When the first "semi-automatic" pistols came out they were called "automatics".

Hence the "A" in "ACP". "Automatic Colt Pistol".

It's a really old usage though. Pretty sure it died with the introduction of "fully automatic" pistols and SMGs (or machine pistols if you like). .
 
2012-08-16 11:25:50 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: [www.angryflower.com image 600x331]


ha ha you're a moron.
 
2012-08-16 11:25:56 AM

Dimensio: From the blog posting

They're shocked-shocked!-to discover their angry, hate-filled rhetoric has resulted in violence. Knock me over with a feather boa.

Perhaps, were the author to identify specific "angry, hate-filled rhetoric", the author's claims and conclusions would be more viable.


I felt it was odd that a conservative blog was so willing to point out the FRC's hate rhetoric, especially as blame for why a disturbed individual would shoot at them. I mean, it's probably true, the FRC's hate and intolerance is probably a key factor in pushing a mentally ill individual over the edge, but for this conservative blog to admit it? Surprising.

/lalalalaicanthearyou
 
2012-08-16 11:26:25 AM
The most recent obsession of the angry, gay left

/Author is asshole
//Subby is asshole for even knowing this blog exists
///Sad at the amount of hits he will get because of this going green
 
2012-08-16 11:26:29 AM

colon_pow: well if they support traditional family values, that means they are hate-mongers and should be destroyed.
totally justifiable.


The Family Research Council support polygamy like it is advocated in the bible?
 
2012-08-16 11:26:41 AM
Subby,

Please learn how apostrophes work. It's not difficult.

/Really it's not.
 
2012-08-16 11:26:54 AM

odinsposse: Maybe he was just doing that moral exchange thing people were talking about. You know, you eat at Chik-Fil-a and then donate money to a pro-gay group. He just decided to shoot up some anti-gay people instead.

Also, can anyone think of another instance of an angry crazy liberal shooting up anything? This may be the first time.


You're kidding, right? Weather Underground, Black Liberation Army, May 19th Organization, etc.?
 
2012-08-16 11:27:09 AM

barneyfifesbullet: Whenever a left wing crazy fails, the link is always blamed. It's the link's fault.

/not subby

I figured this was just an isolated incident of one nutjob. There's no politics in play when it is a crazy person.

There's no politics in play unless it is a right winger tea party white guy white pride hick. Then it is a national dilemma. Everybody panic. They are everywhere.

There will be no further discussion in the media about this shooter. If he could be described as a Repubican, we would know everything about his entire life in 24 hours via the media.


You sound persecuted.
 
2012-08-16 11:27:15 AM

Highroller48: The term has become bastardized by misuse when it comes to handuns.


Which doesn't mean the nomenclature is wrong. That just means that some people are ignorant. Welcome to Earth.

Highroller48: That doesn't mean it's correct to call a semi weapon "automatic".


Use the full terms and you'll see how silly your statement is: "That doesn't mean it's correct to call a semi-automatic firing weapon automatic loading." Sure. A revolver is semi-automatic firing but isn't automatic loading. What's the point of saying that?
 
2012-08-16 11:27:37 AM

Madbassist1: Fluorescent Testicle: [www.angryflower.com image 600x331]

ha ha you're a moron.


oh...I see there are ...several apostrophes in that sentence...not just the one I saw (it's). I'm going to go away in shame now.
 
2012-08-16 11:27:39 AM

dukwbutter: zedster: The suspect's weapon was a legally obtained 9 mm handgun, according to another law enforcement official.

I doubt he had a legally obtained 9mm automatic handgun, not too many of those.

Actually, you know nothing about guns and almost all 9mm's are "automatics". This means "semi-automatic". One trigger pull = 1 round fired = "automatic". The more you know, libtards.


www.lolwut.com
 
2012-08-16 11:27:41 AM
Politically motivated? Probably. It's hard to say this didn't have anything to do with politics given the people involved.

The question is if it's sponsored violence. The Gay Agenda does not sponsor gun fights. Only water and pillow fights.

So what we have here is an individualist who went on a shooting spree.

Well what the fark do you expect in a culture that glorifies violence, and showcases political inaction to foster outrage as a means of gaining ratings?
 
2012-08-16 11:27:44 AM
Stay classy Libs!!!
 
2012-08-16 11:27:51 AM

zedster: The suspect's weapon was a legally obtained 9 mm handgun, according to another law enforcement official.

I doubt he had a legally obtained 9mm automatic handgun, not too many of those.


Dude, only an american would even care about where the gun came from or what kind of gun it was or whether it was auto or semi-auto....does it really matter?
 
2012-08-16 11:28:02 AM

Arcanum: I'm pretty conservative. Most here would think I'm very conservative.

It's annoying as all hell when some nutjob is associated with a conservative movement.

It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say this nutjob is associated with the gay marriage movement.

he's just crazy. Our various disagreements are not affected. Abortion's wrongfulness is not alleviated when some monster bombs a clinic. Gabby Giffords doesn't become right about politics when some monster shoots her. The Gay marriage movement shouldn't be ashamed of some nutjob.

This should be obvious, and I hope the right doesn't make hay out of this psycho. But I also hope the left doesn't make hay when it has the chance. It's annoying as hell.


Yessir
 
2012-08-16 11:28:24 AM
gay members of society can be extremely violent. what else can i say
 
2012-08-16 11:28:43 AM
These people occupy a spectrum. None of them are mentally healthy, but some of them are complete nutbags, whose "politics", if they have any, are irrelevant (Jared Laughner, Sideshow Bob). then there are the clearly crazy ones whose politics are the organizing obsession of their madness (Kozinsky,Crazy shooting psychiatrist at army base). and then, there are the psychopaths who are completely sane and deliberate in their intentions (McVeigh, 9-11 hijackers), and solely motivated by their beliefs.
Very different sorts of people, actually - and I think very different conclusions should be drawn from the things they do.
 
2012-08-16 11:28:49 AM

Highroller48: zedster: I doubt he had a legally obtained 9mm automatic handgun, not too many of those.

I'm always amazed at how few peopole konw the dirfference between "Semi-Automatic" and "Automatic".

It's very simple, folks...If more than one bullet comes out when you squeeze the trigger once (a la Robocop), only then is it an "automatic".


No, it isn't that simple. An automatic pistol is a semiautomatic pistol. It is a correct, if confusing, description. I could be wrong, but I think the phrase predates the development of true, non-Gatling automatic weapons, when the only distinction one had to make was between revolvers and "automatic" handguns.
 
2012-08-16 11:29:01 AM
CNN and the liberal blogosphere have blood on their hands. They inspired this lunatic to go on a killing rampage which luckily was stopped by the security guard. When will they stop spewing their hate? The FCC should immediately censor Rachel Maddow, the View, and other liberal commentators before they incite more violence.
 
2012-08-16 11:29:06 AM

Arcanum: I'm pretty conservative. Most here would think I'm very conservative.
It's annoying as all hell when some nutjob is associated with a conservative movement.
It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say this nutjob is associated with the gay marriage movement.
he's just crazy. Our various disagreements are not affected. Abortion's wrongfulness is not alleviated when some monster bombs a clinic. Gabby Giffords doesn't become right about politics when some monster shoots her. The Gay marriage movement shouldn't be ashamed of some nutjob.
This should be obvious, and I hope the right doesn't make hay out of this psycho. But I also hope the left doesn't make hay when it has the chance. It's annoying as hell.


I agree the nutjobs shouldn't be representative of the movement.

But I also think people on both sides should take the opportunity to reflect on whether their rhetoric is excessive. Of course, we supposedly did that after Giffords got shot, and it hasn't seemed to have changed anything.
 
2012-08-16 11:29:18 AM

barneyfifesbullet: Whenever a left wing crazy fails, the link is always blamed. It's the link's fault.

/not subby

I figured this was just an isolated incident of one nutjob. There's no politics in play when it is a crazy person.

There's no politics in play unless it is a right winger tea party white guy white pride hick. Then it is a national dilemma. Everybody panic. They are everywhere.

There will be no further discussion in the media about this shooter. If he could be described as a Repubican, we would know everything about his entire life in 24 hours via the media.


The bigger reason why he won't be discussed long is body count, not political leanings. Sad but true. Here is to hoping we start to take mental health services seriously.

How long did the national media discuss this incident that had no casualties but they eventually found the guy.

Hint: It wasn't very long.
 
2012-08-16 11:30:13 AM
Conservatives, I get it, I really do. Every time someone goes in a spree shooting everyone rushes to blame your politics. So now you're all gleefully rushing to talk about the "hate filled left", etc. Go for it.

The thing is, you've always told the left that they were stupid for blaming right wing politics for the actions of a lone nutbag.

But now the roles are reversed. Trying to mount a political attack in this case looks even stupider than when the left does it, because this guy was so incompetent he didn't even manage to kill anyone.

So have your day in the sun. But the American right looks even more like a handbag-clutching, stranger-fearing shut-ins than before as this thing begins to reach a fever pitch.

Because the score is still bazillionty-eleven to one. Sure, some gay activist got pissed and tried to shoot up some people on the right.

But that doesn't change the fact that the American left has been defunct as a source of domestic terrorism since the 70's. The vast majority of domestic terrorism (here meaning acts of political violence) since the Reagan years has been from the right, even leaving out the cases where the media jumped to inaccurate conclusions. Timmy McV alone accounts for more political violence than the left has brought to the table for decades.

So everyone have their fun with this, but you all - left and right - just look like a bynch of histrionic cry babies to me.

/a pox on both the "left" and the "right"
 
2012-08-16 11:30:13 AM

barneyfifesbullet: Whenever a left wing crazy fails, the link is always blamed. It's the link's fault.

/not subby

I figured this was just an isolated incident of one nutjob. There's no politics in play when it is a crazy person.

There's no politics in play unless it is a right winger tea party white guy white pride hick. Then it is a national dilemma. Everybody panic. They are everywhere.

There will be no further discussion in the media about this shooter. If he could be described as a Repubican, we would know everything about his entire life in 24 hours via the media.


Lefty nutjobs exist. Lefty nutjobs, however, are generally harmless. Goes along with the Lefty agenda of "guns r bad". Worst most Lefty nutjobs get up to is smashing windows and torching cars. ALF does some nasty shiat, but being extreme Lefties they keep their violence confined to property destruction.

Righty nutjobs exist. Righty nutjobs are rarely entirely harmless. Righty nutjobs are constantly stewing in a broth of hate speech, jingoism, and media that urges "second amendment solutions." Righty nutjobs are armed to the teeth, and often enough practiced in the manufacture of homebrew explosives. (I say this as a person who grew up within the Righty nutjob community, and was trained in both firearms use and explosives manufacture) Righty nutjobs are constantly stroking-off over the day they'll finally be able to purge those heathens from "their" country.

One of these things is not like the other thing...

/not a Lefty or a Righty
//bit of a nutjob though
 
2012-08-16 11:30:16 AM

Highroller48: I can't agree here. The term has become bastardized by misuse when it comes to handuns. That doesn't mean it's correct to call a semi weapon "automatic".


It hasn't been bastardized. It's just an archaic usage from back when auto-loaders were the new hotness. A 1911 would have been commonly called a .45 automatic, for instance. It hasn't been relevant for the better part of a century, but that doesn't make it wrong. Still, it's so rarely used (and generally only in a context that makes it a clear reference to loading) that it's safe to assume that's not what subby intended.
 
2012-08-16 11:30:20 AM

colon_pow: well if they support traditional family values, that means they are hate-mongers and should be destroyed.
totally justifiable.


"traditional family values" aren't any of those things

/I should turn this into a drinking game: every time a news organization uses a misleading euphemism that was obviously coined by some political thinktank/marketing company, take a shot.
 
2012-08-16 11:30:52 AM

Roughing The Snapper: The volunteer's what?


The volunteer is carrying.

Contractions, how the fark do they work? Oh, this will tell you! Contractions (Grammar) - English
 
2012-08-16 11:31:02 AM

palelizard: Apostrophes are also used for possessives. The act of carrying [the bag and gun] belongs to the volunteer.


If it was a possessive, "Is politically motivated" would be "Was politically motivated."

Whether subby farked up the apostrophe or farked up the tenses, it's still farked up.
 
2012-08-16 11:31:03 AM

Kuroshin: Every single abortion clinic shooting, bombing and assassination.


Well, duh! He meant besides them... they're just doing God's commanded work and should be canonized.
 
2012-08-16 11:31:15 AM
Amazing how many liberals are hating on this article right now...
Kinda getting a stiffy....
or is that S'tiffy...
HA!
 
2012-08-16 11:31:47 AM

badaboom: CNN and the liberal blogosphere have blood on their hands. They inspired this lunatic to go on a killing rampage which luckily was stopped by the security guard. When will they stop spewing their hate? The FCC should immediately censor Rachel Maddow, the View, and other liberal commentators before they incite more violence.


I get what you're trying to do, but it's pretty obvious that you're missing all of the important details.
 
2012-08-16 11:32:04 AM

Carth: question for the arm chair lawyers out there. If CNN said the shooting was politically motivated and it was later proved not to be would they be liable for anything?


Of course not. 1st Amendment and all that. Look at the Gabby Giffords situation -- people were crawling all over themselves trying to connect that to a political motivation but it turns out it was just a crazy.
 
2012-08-16 11:33:37 AM

palelizard: Fluorescent Testicle: zcat: If you're talking about the headline, the apostrophe in "volunteer's" is correct. "Carrying" is a noun the way it's used here.

You must be the subby, because no.

FTFH: CNN says it's way too early to say if LGBT volunteer is carrying Chick-Fil-a bag and automatic weapon into conservative group's headquarters is politically motivated.

If that makes sense to you, you might be a moron.

Apostrophes are also used for possessives. The act of carrying [the bag and gun] belongs to the volunteer.


Is it wrong that I'm more interetested in the resolution to the apostrophe debate?

/headline is correct
 
2012-08-16 11:33:58 AM

WTF Indeed: Conservatives can walk into any place and kill anyone they want


AND, they're totally justified in doing it, because GOD.

/don't even try to argue, because GOD

/but I...

/nope, GOD!
 
2012-08-16 11:34:01 AM

dukwbutter: zedster: The suspect's weapon was a legally obtained 9 mm handgun, according to another law enforcement official.

I doubt he had a legally obtained 9mm automatic handgun, not too many of those.

Actually, you know nothing about guns and almost all 9mm's are "automatics". This means "semi-automatic". One trigger pull = 1 round fired = "automatic". The more you know, libtards.


so it has an autoloader but not full automatic firing?

well than, call it an auto-loading handgun not an automatic handgun, there is a difference

A glock18c = automatic handgun
most other magazine fed pistols = auto-loading handguns

The way it was used in the headline "automatic weapon" most people would assume meant a weapon that could fire more than one round per trigger pull and further when people think "automatic weapon" they picture something bigger than a pistol

doesn't change the fact this guy was criminal and shot someone, but stick to the facts
 
2012-08-16 11:34:16 AM

colon_pow: well if they support traditional family values, that means they are hate-mongers and should be destroyed.
totally justifiable.


If someone snapped and tried to shoot up the office of a white supremacist group in the 60s, then they should of course be prosecuted as well. You can't just go around shooting people, no matter how reprehensible they are.

But being coy about why the attempted shooting took place and using euphemisms like "traditional family values" just makes you look like an idiot - so you might as well just get off that cross and get on with your day.
 
2012-08-16 11:34:44 AM

Nova81426: Is it wrong that I'm more interetested in the resolution to the apostrophe debate?

/headline is correct


but still horribly written and subby should be put in time out from their keyboard
 
2012-08-16 11:34:54 AM
How dare CNN report what the FBI has said, which is that it is too early to determine whether the shooting was politically motivated. Why does the FBI have such a liberal bias?
 
2012-08-16 11:35:47 AM
FRC is a vile hate group and the shooting was a stupid, unhelpful idea that did nothing to help LGBT people.

That is all I have to contribute.
 
2012-08-16 11:36:06 AM

CAADbury: dukwbutter: zedster: The suspect's weapon was a legally obtained 9 mm handgun, according to another law enforcement official.

I doubt he had a legally obtained 9mm automatic handgun, not too many of those.

Actually, you know nothing about guns and almost all 9mm's are "automatics". This means "semi-automatic". One trigger pull = 1 round fired = "automatic". The more you know, libtards.


Caadbury - lol wut? Shove it up your ass nimrod. You dont know shiat about guns. I grew up with them. Semi-automatic weapons are commonly referred to as "automatics". This is true of shotguns, pistols, and rifles. You wouldnt know because youre a liberal douche and have never fired a gun.
 
2012-08-16 11:36:18 AM

Red_Fox: zedster: The suspect's weapon was a legally obtained 9 mm handgun, according to another law enforcement official.

I doubt he had a legally obtained 9mm automatic handgun, not too many of those.

Dude, only an american would even care about where the gun came from or what kind of gun it was or whether it was auto or semi-auto....does it really matter?


point was to asses just how overly loaded and nonfactual this headline was.

Yes, I could have also pointed the police, even if they think the motive was clear as day, will not say anything to the media before an investigation is complete
 
2012-08-16 11:36:25 AM

WTF Indeed: As a liberal, I feel sad about this. Conservatives can walk into any place and kill anyone they want, just look at Dr. Tiller. They are so much better at this than we are.


Straws, grasping, you.
 
2012-08-16 11:36:48 AM
bullmurph.com

100% responsible for this heinous act. Should be banned
 
2012-08-16 11:36:53 AM

Fish in a Barrel: Highroller48: I can't agree here. The term has become bastardized by misuse when it comes to handuns. That doesn't mean it's correct to call a semi weapon "automatic".

It hasn't been bastardized. It's just an archaic usage from back when auto-loaders were the new hotness. A 1911 would have been commonly called a .45 automatic, for instance. It hasn't been relevant for the better part of a century, but that doesn't make it wrong. Still, it's so rarely used (and generally only in a context that makes it a clear reference to loading) that it's safe to assume that's not what subby intended.


Fair enough. I don't like it, but a few minutes of Googling shows that even some manufacturers refer to semi-automatic handguns as automatics. I think that, with the invention of fully-automatic weapons, it's archaic as folks have said, but it's definitely still in use.

But damn it, it's gonna bug me....
 
2012-08-16 11:36:58 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: Whether subby farked up the apostrophe or farked up the tenses, it's still farked up.


Actually, it probably should have been "Was" regardless. Goddamn, what a complete raping of the English language.
 
2012-08-16 11:37:09 AM

LasersHurt: Yes, the LGBT community is so well known for their angry, hateful rhetoric inciting violence. duh.


I realize you meant this as a joke, but in all seriousness, they have consistently dehumanized their ideological opponents by calling them "anti-gay," "bigots," "homophobes," "hateful," and the like for quite a long time. The Family Research Council has even been officially designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. And then this Chik-fil-a thing happens. Dan Cathy, a known conservative Christian who directs a small fraction of his otherwise laudable charitable giving toward "anti-gay" causes, responds to a direct question from a journalist who works for a Christian publication by saying that he supports "traditional" marriage and the "biblical" understanding of family, and for two or three weeks solid, everyone loses their shiat and acts like he'shiatler reincarnated. Frankly, it's amazing that it took this long for something like this to happen.
 
2012-08-16 11:37:39 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: palelizard: Apostrophes are also used for possessives. The act of carrying [the bag and gun] belongs to the volunteer.

If it was a possessive, "Is politically motivated" would be "Was politically motivated."

Whether subby farked up the apostrophe or farked up the tenses, it's still farked up.


You're correct on the past tense bit. And it would have been easier to read with an 'of a' thrown in there... "volunteer's carrying of a chick-fil-a bag..."
 
2012-08-16 11:37:42 AM

zedster: Yes, I could have also pointed out the police, even if they think the motive was clear as day, will not say anything to the media before an investigation is complete


/ftfm
 
2012-08-16 11:38:00 AM

Voiceofreason01: Nova81426: Is it wrong that I'm more interetested in the resolution to the apostrophe debate?

/headline is correct

but still horribly written and subby should be put in time out from their keyboard


This headline follows the letter of grammar law, but not the spirit.
 
2012-08-16 11:38:09 AM
Pish, tosh, they were labeled a hate group for calling people who were not pedophiles pedophiles. There are anti-gay groups that hold the same moronic views as FRC without the accusing people of crimes they didn't commit thing. If people want to claim FRC is about family values, ask them what the family value in lying about people is. 

They got lucky, frankly, one day someone else who is a little deranged is going to take them seriously and shoot the 'pedophiles' before they can 'hurt more kids.'

...and on that day, as per usual, FRC will still defend its rhetoric as having nothing to do with what's happening around it. Their consistent doubling down on the 'we can't be responsible if people believe us when we lie' stuff will eventually cause them to lose a civil suit that ends in them being bankrupt...and they'll blame liberal judges, not the whole 'caught in the act of lying' thing.

If you want to be anti-gay families, and pro-homophobia, good for you, but if the only way you can do it is by lying, cheating, or breaking the law, you've got to wonder why you wouldn't embrace the term hate group for yourself, like the neonazis do.
 
2012-08-16 11:38:51 AM

dukwbutter: Actually, you know nothing about guns and almost all 9mm's are "automatics". This means "semi-automatic". One trigger pull = 1 round fired = "automatic". The more you know, libtards.


lol.

I'm not even a gun person and I know you are wrong.

A manual gun has to be cocked each time you want to pull the trigger. A pump shotgun would be an example of this. Another example would be a bolt action rifle.

A semi-automatic gun ejects the spent shell casing and loads another round into the chamber, as well as cocking the weapon, allowing a shot to be fired every single time you pull the trigger without the shooter having to do anything else. Example, a 1911. a Glock 9mm, Desert Eagle

A fully automatic weapon is basically the same as an semi-automatic weapon but is designed to allow the weapon to cycle and fire rounds as long as the trigger is pulled. Since this is generally wasteful due to recoil pushing you off target, Automatic weapons frequently have a selector allowing you to use them in Semi automatic fire, fully automatic, and possibly a 3 round burst. Example: M16.

Fully automatic weapons are really hard to get ahold of legally unless you want to join the army and use an M16. Need a lot of permits and permission slips.

Some semi-automatic weapons can be modified to fire fully automatically, but it's highly illegal. I imagine a lot of semi-automatic weapons aren't able to withstand that kind of force without breaking down too
 
2012-08-16 11:38:54 AM
Have any "liberal" sources or commentators suggested that the shooter was actually a conservative "plant" attempting to make opponents of oppression of homosexuals and transgender individuals appear to be violent and irrational?
 
2012-08-16 11:38:59 AM

Biness: nutbags are nutbags. Was it politically motivated? yep. so right wing has nuts. left wing has nuts. the only real constant is that CNN sucks and must serve their high overlord, liberals


Hey now, according to some Farkers, only conservatives would do such a thing. At least that is what they said about the last few right-wing wacko news stories.
 
2012-08-16 11:39:13 AM

Rostin: I realize you meant this as a joke, but in all seriousness, they have consistently dehumanized their ideological opponents by calling them "anti-gay," "bigots," "homophobes," "hateful," and the like for quite a long time.


That word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
 
2012-08-16 11:40:41 AM
"The Dog Ate My Homework

How dare CNN report what the FBI has said, which is that it is too early to determine whether the shooting was politically motivated. Why does the FBI have such a liberal bias?"

Agreed. People also got all outraged when the police wouldn't comment on motive when the lesbian woman had slurs carved into her skin as well. It's not a matter of the authorities don't know what the motive is, it's a matter of the authorities don't want to destroy their case in court.
 
2012-08-16 11:41:31 AM

Ker_Thwap: While this blogger is projecting the actions/beliefs of one individual to an entire community... That's pretty much what every single group with an agenda does, left or right.


I don't think this it true. I think you're projecting that behavior onto groups with agendas.
 
2012-08-16 11:41:40 AM

dukwbutter: Shove it up your ass nimrod. You dont know shiat about guns. I grew up with them. Semi-automatic weapons are commonly referred to as "automatics". This is true of shotguns, pistols, and rifles. You wouldnt know because youre a liberal douche and have never fired a gun.


i.istockimg.com
 
2012-08-16 11:41:49 AM

palelizard: You're correct on the past tense bit. And it would have been easier to read with an 'of a' thrown in there... "volunteer's carrying of a chick-fil-a bag..."


Yeah, that would work. Or "Volunteer who carried a." Or basically anything except what he wrote. :P
 
2012-08-16 11:41:58 AM
They're shocked-shocked!-to discover their angry, hate-filled rhetoric has resulted in violence. Knock me over with a feather boa.

Nice, no rhetoric from the Right there, I guess All Our Base Belong to Them...

Seriously, the amount of Pot/Kettle in this single blog is amazing, but I've given up on anyone on the Right having any brains and using logic. Last person to have these qualities was Huntsman, and look what they did to him. Before that it was McCain, but in his desperate bid to get a mind-numbingly stupid woman a single heartbeat from the Big Red Button, he threw away all of his principles, and became just as vile as the rest of the Right.

Now, if this guy would like, we could examine all of the shootings in the last 5 years by Righties, and compare them to the guy who got shot in the arm yesterday, and is doing well now.
 
2012-08-16 11:42:08 AM

Vodka Zombie: Really? You're going to greenlight this jammie-wearing retard's blog?


t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-08-16 11:42:53 AM
Their side has ex-soldiers, we got some former USAF contractor. Drops the gun and surrenders. There will be more though, because of our easy access to firearms.
 
2012-08-16 11:43:06 AM
100 people were surveyed.....what is a lesson we learned from the movie "Basic Instinct"?

Jon iz teh kewl: gay members of society can be extremely violent.

 

i7.photobucket.com 

Survey says?!
 
2012-08-16 11:43:12 AM

Rostin: LasersHurt: Yes, the LGBT community is so well known for their angry, hateful rhetoric inciting violence. duh.

I realize you meant this as a joke, but in all seriousness, they have consistently dehumanized their ideological opponents by calling them "anti-gay," "bigots," "homophobes," "hateful," and the like for quite a long time. The Family Research Council has even been officially designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. And then this Chik-fil-a thing happens. Dan Cathy, a known conservative Christian who directs a small fraction of his otherwise laudable charitable giving toward "anti-gay" causes, responds to a direct question from a journalist who works for a Christian publication by saying that he supports "traditional" marriage and the "biblical" understanding of family, and for two or three weeks solid, everyone loses their shiat and acts like he'shiatler reincarnated. Frankly, it's amazing that it took this long for something like this to happen.


They're not "dehumanizing" them by calling them anti-gay, or bigots, or homophobes. They're accurately labelling them. Those are just adjectives - adjectives that apply to humans, of course, who are individuals, alive, and worthy of not being killed.

My point is this - you rarely to never see pro-LGBT people recommending violence specifically. They are very public about their opinions of people who don't support LGBT rights, sure, but that's not an incitement to violence. I find that's a specific requirement that's often glossed over in these matters, on either side of the ideological fence. Sometimes people overreact to disagreeing by thinking it's an incitement to violence.

Of course some people overreact by shooting people, and, well, that's bad.
 
2012-08-16 11:43:32 AM

fluffy2097: A semi-automatic gun ejects the spent shell casing and loads another round into the chamber, as well as cocking the weapon, allowing a shot to be fired every single time you pull the trigger without the shooter having to do anything else. Example, a 1911. a Glock 9mm, Desert Eagle


hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
 
2012-08-16 11:45:03 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: palelizard: You're correct on the past tense bit. And it would have been easier to read with an 'of a' thrown in there... "volunteer's carrying of a chick-fil-a bag..."

Yeah, that would work. Or "Volunteer who carried a." Or basically anything except what he wrote. :P


glad that the plurality of errors was mentioned. I read the original headline as if the apostrophe were correct, but the use of the "carrying" was incorrectly implemented.
 
2012-08-16 11:45:33 AM

fluffy2097: dukwbutter: Actually, you know nothing about guns and almost all 9mm's are "automatics". This means "semi-automatic". One trigger pull = 1 round fired = "automatic". The more you know, libtards.

lol.

I'm not even a gun person and I know you are wrong.

A manual gun has to be cocked each time you want to pull the trigger. A pump shotgun would be an example of this. Another example would be a bolt action rifle.

A semi-automatic gun ejects the spent shell casing and loads another round into the chamber, as well as cocking the weapon, allowing a shot to be fired every single time you pull the trigger without the shooter having to do anything else. Example, a 1911. a Glock 9mm, Desert Eagle

A fully automatic weapon is basically the same as an semi-automatic weapon but is designed to allow the weapon to cycle and fire rounds as long as the trigger is pulled. Since this is generally wasteful due to recoil pushing you off target, Automatic weapons frequently have a selector allowing you to use them in Semi automatic fire, fully automatic, and possibly a 3 round burst. Example: M16.

Fully automatic weapons are really hard to get ahold of legally unless you want to join the army and use an M16. Need a lot of permits and permission slips.

Some semi-automatic weapons can be modified to fire fully automatically, but it's highly illegal. I imagine a lot of semi-automatic weapons aren't able to withstand that kind of force without breaking down too


Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Fully automatic weapons are very easy to get, proving you have no idea what you're talking about. All you need is a class III firearms permit. People do, in fact, routinely refer to semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns as "automatics", and, if you knew anything about guns (aside from what you read on the intertubes), then you'd know this.
 
2012-08-16 11:45:55 AM
"Ker_Thwap: While this blogger is projecting the actions/beliefs of one individual to an entire community... That's pretty much what every single group with an agenda does, left or right.

I don't think this it true. I think you're projecting that behavior onto groups with agendas."

I think you're projecting that I'm projecting.
 
2012-08-16 11:45:57 AM

fluffy2097: A semi-automatic gun ejects the spent shell casing and loads another round into the chamber, as well as cocking the weapon, allowing a shot to be fired every single time you pull the trigger without the shooter having to do anything else. Example, a 1911. a Glock 9mm, Desert Eagle


Picking nits, but what about a DAO semi, like Sig's DAK?
 
2012-08-16 11:46:55 AM

LasersHurt: They're accurately labelling them.


Kierkegaard is on line one for you.
 
2012-08-16 11:48:00 AM

lazerball: Vodka Zombie: Really? You're going to greenlight this jammie-wearing retard's blog?

[t2.gstatic.com image 225x225]


Yeah but the reasonably well written CNN article that subby references is right here, instead subby decided to link some crappy little blog, presumably because one of the Mods owns some of the ad revenue.
 
2012-08-16 11:48:31 AM

fluffy2097: dukwbutter: Actually, you know nothing about guns and almost all 9mm's are "automatics". This means "semi-automatic". One trigger pull = 1 round fired = "automatic". The more you know, libtards.

lol.

I'm not even a gun person and I know you are wrong.

A manual gun has to be cocked each time you want to pull the trigger. A pump shotgun would be an example of this. Another example would be a bolt action rifle.

A semi-automatic gun ejects the spent shell casing and loads another round into the chamber, as well as cocking the weapon, allowing a shot to be fired every single time you pull the trigger without the shooter having to do anything else. Example, a 1911. a Glock 9mm, Desert Eagle

A fully automatic weapon is basically the same as an semi-automatic weapon but is designed to allow the weapon to cycle and fire rounds as long as the trigger is pulled. Since this is generally wasteful due to recoil pushing you off target, Automatic weapons frequently have a selector allowing you to use them in Semi automatic fire, fully automatic, and possibly a 3 round burst. Example: M16.

Fully automatic weapons are really hard to get ahold of legally unless you want to join the army and use an M16. Need a lot of permits and permission slips.

Some semi-automatic weapons can be modified to fire fully automatically, but it's highly illegal. I imagine a lot of semi-automatic weapons aren't able to withstand that kind of force without breaking down too


Its obvious you are not a gin person. And yes, you are wrong. Semi-automatic weapons are routinely called automatics. You, sir, are a liberal idiot.
 
2012-08-16 11:48:31 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: [www.angryflower.com image 600x331]


OK, I missed the 'apostrophe no-no'...

it's--Contraction of 'it is'

volunteer's--Possessive of 'volunteer'(Could also be 'Bob's carrying of a loaded gun')

group's--Possessive of 'group'

CNN says it's it is way too early to say if LGBT volunteer's carrying of Chick-Fil-a bag and automatic weapon into conservative group's headquarters of conservative group is politically motivated

The 'of' makes the thing a little tighter, but if it isn't grammatically accurate, it's not because of apostrophes.
 
2012-08-16 11:48:58 AM

meanmutton: Can we stop calling a pistol an "automatic weapon" now, please?


Nope, semi-automatic doesnt sound as scary. Remember, facts and accuracy come second to selling the story...and nothing sells like scary.
 
2012-08-16 11:49:35 AM

CommieTaoist: So it's only relevant to point out links when someone idiot on the left does it yet how dare anyone mention such links when the idiot is a tea bagger, right?

/your blog sucks


You are missing the point.
The LSM was quick to assume the shooter at the Batman movie was a tea party member based on finding someone with the same name registered at a tea party site.

Here, with all the information they have, they still won't say speculate that it is politically motivated.

Do you see the difference?

BTW, just because a person is a LGBT volunteer does not mean that the person is into tea bagging as you claimed. There was nothing in the article about that.
 
2012-08-16 11:49:38 AM
www.mememaker.net
 
2012-08-16 11:49:43 AM

The Muthaship: LasersHurt: They're accurately labelling them.

Kierkegaard is on line one for you.


Oh stuff relativism, in this case. I care not for its waffliness in this specific case - it's pretty one-sided.
 
2012-08-16 11:50:16 AM

WTF Indeed: I'm sure everyone agrees now that guns should be controlled because when angry liberals have them the world is over.



Now we need guns because of angry liberals.

I'm so tired of all this Chick-Fil-A crap. You know what, the president of that corporation has the right to his own opinion and just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong.

If you don't like it, go eat somewhere else.
 
2012-08-16 11:51:10 AM

Cold_Sassy: I'm so tired of all this Chick-Fil-A crap. You know what, the president of that corporation has the right to his own opinion and just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong.

If you don't like it, go eat somewhere else.


... I believe that was the point?
 
2012-08-16 11:51:12 AM
I'm pretty neutral on the whole gun thing. Here's how I see it.

Normal gun: Bang, click, Bang, click, Bang.

Semi automatic: Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang.

Automatic: Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang
 
2012-08-16 11:51:23 AM

CAADbury: dukwbutter: Shove it up your ass nimrod. You dont know shiat about guns. I grew up with them. Semi-automatic weapons are commonly referred to as "automatics". This is true of shotguns, pistols, and rifles. You wouldnt know because youre a liberal douche and have never fired a gun.


Yes. The truth hurts Caadbury. Post LOL WUT when you dont understand something. Then post some bait jpg when youre proven to be an ignorant liberal douche. Well played, obama fan!
 
2012-08-16 11:51:31 AM

zedster: The suspect's weapon was a legally obtained 9 mm handgun, according to another law enforcement official.

I doubt he had a legally obtained 9mm automatic handgun, not too many of those.


Actually, they are usually called 'Automatic', even though they are semi auto by definition. It's a way to distinguish from revolvers, where double-action makes them a semi-auto, but they still have a revolving chamber.
 
2012-08-16 11:52:51 AM

odinsposse: Maybe he was just doing that moral exchange thing people were talking about. You know, you eat at Chik-Fil-a and then donate money to a pro-gay group. He just decided to shoot up some anti-gay people instead.

Also, can anyone think of another instance of an angry crazy liberal shooting up anything? This may be the first time.


Discovery building shooting
 
2012-08-16 11:53:39 AM

Hack Patooey: [www.mememaker.net image 400x398]


Good luck getting homosexualmisia to catch on.

Homomisia is already hatred of the same.

I guess technically Homophobia is fear of the same as well
 
2012-08-16 11:54:01 AM

Ker_Thwap: I'm pretty neutral on the whole gun thing. Here's how I see it.

Normal gun: Bang, click, Bang, click, Bang.

Semi automatic: Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang.

Automatic: Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang


Semi-automatic firearms seem to be the "norm" now.

/Why did my "quote" button disappear?
 
2012-08-16 11:55:04 AM
A) Three people were shot to death at Texas A&M earlier this week.
B) Two police officers were shot to death in Louisiana this morning.
C) An FRC security guard was shot in the arm yesterday.

Which one do you think will still be in the news two weeks from now, A), B), or C)?

Explain your reasoning.
 
2012-08-16 11:56:56 AM

Ker_Thwap: I'm pretty neutral on the whole gun thing. Here's how I see it.

Normal gun: Bang, click, Bang, click, Bang.

Semi automatic: Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang.

Automatic: Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang


Most normal guns are semi automatic in that they re-cock themselves and when you pull the trigger again they go boom.
 
2012-08-16 11:56:58 AM

meanmutton: Roughing The Snapper: The volunteer's what?

The volunteer is carrying.

Contractions, how the fark do they work? Oh, this will tell you! Contractions (Grammar) - English


NO, it is possessive. The volunteers(Unsaid) ACT of carrying.

The word 'of' would have helped. 'The volunteer's carrying of a gun...'

Besides, would one of you dense people explain WHY subby would be pluralizing 'volunteer' WHEN THERE WAS ONLY ONE SHOOTER?
 
2012-08-16 11:57:35 AM
So this guy had 15 Chik-fil-a sandwiches in his backpack.

What was he planning to do? Was he stocked up for a long siege? Planning to make a statement by placing one one on each body?

In any case, I bet he was the best-smelling ideological killer ever.
 
2012-08-16 11:57:52 AM

Lutrasimilis: A) Three people were shot to death at Texas A&M earlier this week.
B) Two police officers were shot to death in Louisiana this morning.
C) An FRC security guard was shot in the arm yesterday.

Which one do you think will still be in the news two weeks from now, A), B), or C)?

Explain your reasoning.


none.

people won't care in two weeks, or something more dramatic will happen.
 
2012-08-16 11:58:32 AM
Subby gets major points for:

1) Correct use of an apostrophe
2) Outing a number of wannabe grammar Nazis who should probably brush up before attempting to cast stones
 
2012-08-16 11:58:38 AM
If the Republican party wanted to ban cookies and I walked into a Romney campaign office with a pack of Famous Amos and a .380 and I being "political".
 
2012-08-16 11:58:59 AM

pute kisses like a man: Lutrasimilis: A) Three people were shot to death at Texas A&M earlier this week.
B) Two police officers were shot to death in Louisiana this morning.
C) An FRC security guard was shot in the arm yesterday.

Which one do you think will still be in the news two weeks from now, A), B), or C)?

Explain your reasoning.

none.

people won't care in two weeks, or something more dramatic will happen.


A couple of cops were killed in Louisiana today after two other cops were shot in an ambush.

Expect that to take front and center today.
 
2012-08-16 11:59:30 AM

tricycleracer: If the Republican party wanted to ban cookies and I walked into a Romney campaign office with a pack of Famous Amos and a .380 am I being "political"?


Wow, really hate the placement of the "Add Comment" button.
 
2012-08-16 12:00:42 PM

Dimensio: Ker_Thwap: I'm pretty neutral on the whole gun thing. Here's how I see it.

Normal gun: Bang, click, Bang, click, Bang.

Semi automatic: Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang.

Automatic: Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang

Semi-automatic firearms seem to be the "norm" now.

/Why did my "quote" button disappear?


The norm for over 100 years now.
 
2012-08-16 12:00:44 PM
"/Why did my "quote" button disappear?"

I can never quote on these boards. I run NoScript and Adblock and all that crap. I imagine I haven't given permission to some harmless script while trying to block all of the intrusive scripts.
 
2012-08-16 12:00:59 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: BTW, just because a person is a LGBT volunteer does not mean that the person is into tea bagging as you claimed. There was nothing in the article about that.


i1156.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-16 12:01:32 PM
tricycleracer: tricycleracer: If the Republican party wanted to ban cookies and I walked into a Romney campaign office with a pack of Famous Amos and a .380 am I being "political"?

Wow, really hate the placement of the "Add Comment" button.


I am still attempting to locate the "quote" button.
 
2012-08-16 12:01:48 PM

tricycleracer: Wow, really hate the placement of the "Add Comment" button.


You'll get over it.
 
2012-08-16 12:03:35 PM
Ker_Thwap: I can never quote on these boards. I run NoScript and Adblock and all that crap. I imagine I haven't given permission to some harmless script while trying to block all of the intrusive scripts.

My "quote" button disappeared within the hour. It does not appear in any browser, including browsers on computers without any plug-ins installed.
 
2012-08-16 12:04:25 PM

Dimensio


I am still attempting to locate the "quote" button.


Seriously?

It's that little square button next to the date. The button has quotation marks on it for some reason.
 
2012-08-16 12:05:13 PM
Like I said, I could give a crap about guns.

Just remove the normal line from the my quote if it makes you happier. My point is that even a casual reader of gun related articles can figure out the difference between semi-automatic and automatic. If you feel the need to argue semantics further then you probably have an agenda.
 
2012-08-16 12:05:34 PM

dukwbutter: almost all 9mm's are "automatics". This means "semi-automatic"


LOL, no circular logic there, 'Automatic means semi-automatic?', you sure you want to stand on that statement?

dukwbutter: One trigger pull = 1 round fired = "automatic". The more you know, libtards.


Actually, it is "One trigger pull = 1 round fired = semi-automatic>"

The more you know, moron.

Here's what happens; Magazine fed(Auto-loader pistols) are 'usually' called automatics to set them apart from revolvers, but it IS NOT SET IN STONE, and your "logic" has to be some of the most misinformed bullshiat I've ever seen. You sound about as familiar with guns as Sarah Palin. You can't even use the '1 trigger pull = 1 shot thing in guns, because a double action revolver does not require you to cock the gun in any way to fire, so you can pull the trigger 6 (Or 5, 7, 8 or 9, depending on the revolver), times and it will fire each time without you having to do anything but pull the trigger.

But, hey, go ahead and throw out the term "libtards", I usually get accused of being a Liberal because I can't stand the current batch of republicans. Funny how this supposed "Lib" understand the very basic ideas about guns more than you do.
 
2012-08-16 12:06:07 PM

LasersHurt: They're not "dehumanizing" them by calling them anti-gay, or bigots, or homophobes. They're accurately labelling them. Those are just adjectives - adjectives that apply to humans, of course, who are individuals, alive, and worthy of not being killed.


I'm certainly glad that you recognize that they are human individuals who don't deserve to be killed, but I stand by what I said. When we resort to labeling people based on what we believe their motivations to be while ignoring what they actually say, we have ceased to treat them like fellow human beings. These words are not just "accurate labels" for people. They are specifically calculated to create an emotional response and to short circuit empathy. It's very common to hear people say things like, "We don't need to listen to them; they're bigots, so it doesn't matter."

My point is this - you rarely to never see pro-LGBT people recommending violence specifically. They are very public about their opinions of people who don't support LGBT rights, sure, but that's not an incitement to violence. I find that's a specific requirement that's often glossed over in these matters, on either side of the ideological fence. Sometimes people overreact to disagreeing by thinking it's an incitement to violence. Of course some people overreact by shooting people, and, well, that's bad.

That is a fair point, but it doesn't change the fact that people on both sides are guilty of treating their opponents as less than human in the way that I described.
 
2012-08-16 12:06:17 PM
Wait, how do we know he wasn't just standing his ground?
 
2012-08-16 12:06:19 PM

Arcanum: I think the Chik Fil A thing is that people want the right to have their conservative views without democrat mayors becoming fascists about it. It's none of their business what someone's political views are.

If someone wants to protest those views, that's what America's all about. If someone wants to shut down businesses with the 'wrong' opinions, that is a different matter.


Sigh. This canard again.

These "conservative views" and "'wrong' opinions" (from Chick-fil-A) are about using their customers' money to criminalize (or re-criminalize, or prevent decriminalization of) homosexuality both in the US and elsewhere (like Uganda). If all Chick-fil-A had been doing was saying "Gays are icky," well, they'd still be a pretty nasty bunch of idiots, but yes, then it would be free speech/political views issue as you claim.

I don't know if you're repeating this misinformation because you simply don't know better or not. If so, please educate yourself.
 
2012-08-16 12:07:11 PM

Arcanum: I'm pretty conservative. Most here would think I'm very conservative.

It's annoying as all hell when some nutjob is associated with a conservative movement.

It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say this nutjob is associated with the gay marriage movement.

he's just crazy. Our various disagreements are not affected. Abortion's wrongfulness is not alleviated when some monster bombs a clinic. Gabby Giffords doesn't become right about politics when some monster shoots her. The Gay marriage movement shouldn't be ashamed of some nutjob.

This should be obvious, and I hope the right doesn't make hay out of this psycho. But I also hope the left doesn't make hay when it has the chance. It's annoying as hell.


Here's the difference. In their zeal to project a macho Law-and-order, Go-go-military, red-meat image republicans - not conservatives, but republicans specifically - use violent and war like imagery that encourages their nutballs to buy guns and think about using them against their perceived enemies. Combine that with the NRA making the GOP their biatch and you have a situation where it's NOT just crazy people doing horrible things, it's specifically easily led, angry people gravitating toward angry, blame filled republican rhetoric that do horrible things specifically targeting the government and democrats.

You can say it's just crazy people, but the numbers do not lie. For every liberal nutjob killing people, there are scores of GOP inspired deaths. And by the way, liberals generally don't give a fark what you do so long as you don't discriminate against other people, so the persecution of Right wing nutjobs against their "Way of life" is unfounded. What IS NOT unfounded is the liberal argument that laws are specifically being passed to outlaw THEIR way of life, like laws forbidding partners from seeing loved ones in the hospital because they aren't "related" OR laws making Civil unions for gay folks illegal so they can't buy a house together, co-own a car or really anything that makes life more convenient OR that travesty of a bankruptcy law that shields the rich when they get into trouble but cripples the poor OR the selectively enforced war on drugs that is really a war on brown people with drugs.

Quite frankly, you look at who is oppressing whom and you wonder why there aren't more liberal on conservative violently politically motivated crimes. Then again, rational people, no matter how motivated and spun up with rhetoric will not do these kinds of things and it takes a rational person to realize that rich white straight people have gamed the system to perpetuate their own interests and be mad about that.
 
2012-08-16 12:07:22 PM

Mikey1969: The 'of' makes the thing a little tighter, but if it isn't grammatically accurate, it's not because of apostrophes.


Like I said before, whether it was supposed to be a mangled plural or a mangled possessive (I didn't see it as being a possessive because that just makes the rest of it even more wrong), it was still mangled to the point of being comprehended in a dozen different ways by a dozen different people. Therefore, not a good headline. We can all agree on that, yes?
 
2012-08-16 12:07:45 PM

badaboom: CNN and the liberal blogosphere have blood on their hands. They inspired this lunatic to go on a killing rampage which luckily was stopped by the security guard. When will they stop spewing their hate? The FCC should immediately censor Rachel Maddow, the View, and other liberal commentators before they incite more violence.


Good thing they didn't do something like sponsor a 'Let's fire an M16 to remove Gabrielle Giffords from office' event, or you might have a point.
 
2012-08-16 12:07:57 PM
Hmh. Hateful speech from the LGBT community.

From the L. G. B. T. Community.

Hateful. As in "I hate you and want you to burn in hell."

I see.
 
2012-08-16 12:09:52 PM
How could this have even happened? I mean, aren't guns illegal in DC?
 
2012-08-16 12:10:26 PM
I thought that the Right liked "second amendment solutions".
 
2012-08-16 12:11:05 PM

jodaveki: Hmh. Hateful speech from the LGBT community.

From the L. G. B. T. Community.

Hateful. As in "I hate you and want you to burn in hell."

I see.


but what does it MEAN?
 
2012-08-16 12:13:41 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: Fluorescent Testicle: Whether subby farked up the apostrophe or farked up the tenses, it's still farked up.

Actually, it probably should have been "Was" regardless. Goddamn, what a complete raping of the English language.


The headline uses "CNN says..." in the present tense, so even though it's reported speech, the tense doesn't necessarily have to be pushed back, meaning "is" is fine.

Don't worry, Subby, I appreciated your headline.
 
2012-08-16 12:13:52 PM

Rostin: LasersHurt: They're not "dehumanizing" them by calling them anti-gay, or bigots, or homophobes. They're accurately labelling them. Those are just adjectives - adjectives that apply to humans, of course, who are individuals, alive, and worthy of not being killed.

I'm certainly glad that you recognize that they are human individuals who don't deserve to be killed, but I stand by what I said. When we resort to labeling people based on what we believe their motivations to be while ignoring what they actually say, we have ceased to treat them like fellow human beings. These words are not just "accurate labels" for people. They are specifically calculated to create an emotional response and to short circuit empathy. It's very common to hear people say things like, "We don't need to listen to them; they're bigots, so it doesn't matter."

My point is this - you rarely to never see pro-LGBT people recommending violence specifically. They are very public about their opinions of people who don't support LGBT rights, sure, but that's not an incitement to violence. I find that's a specific requirement that's often glossed over in these matters, on either side of the ideological fence. Sometimes people overreact to disagreeing by thinking it's an incitement to violence. Of course some people overreact by shooting people, and, well, that's bad.

That is a fair point, but it doesn't change the fact that people on both sides are guilty of treating their opponents as less than human in the way that I described.


... They actually say that they do not support equal rights for homosexuals. That's not a subtle inference.
 
2012-08-16 12:14:10 PM

Walker: I'm shocked that the Family Research Council, a "hate group" according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, is causing hate. Hate begets hate. Don't put it out there if you don't want it back.


Watch the FRC start whining about their hate group status on right-wing media after this shiat. "They painted a target on our backs" will be the line. They just won a major propaganda victory against the gay rights movement and can demonize activists like never before.

Thankfully, nobody died. The last thing we need right now are more people getting killed by random psychos.
 
2012-08-16 12:17:15 PM
Englebert Slaptyback: Dimensio

I am still attempting to locate the "quote" button.


Seriously?

It's that little square button next to the date. The button has quotation marks on it for some reason.



members.iglou.com

Evidently I am of below average intelligence. Perhaps you could highlight the specific location of the "little square button next to the date".
 
2012-08-16 12:18:03 PM

PiffMan420:

Thankfully, nobody died. The last thing we need right now are more people getting killed by random psychos.


true. right wing nutballs are generally better shots.

*sigh*

this incident does not help. just because right wing nutballs run around shooting people they don't like does NOT mean that left wing nutballs get to do the same. KNOCK IT OFF PEOPLE! yeesh.
 
2012-08-16 12:18:05 PM
A Chi-fil-A bag? Awesome! Must have missed that part from the earlier articles. At least he had a sense of humor.
 
2012-08-16 12:18:22 PM
jodaveki


Smartest
Funniest

2012-08-16 12:07:57 PM

Hmh. Hateful speech from the LGBT community.

From the L. G. B. T. Community.

Hateful. As in "I hate you and want you to burn in hell."

I see.


I'm a moderate, so I tend to piss off twice as many people. That said, I see plenty of hateful left wing speech also. The most recent example I can think of was "I hope every Chik Fil A franchise owner and his family starves." I don't think people even stop to consider how things they say can be hateful when they're all caught up in being moral.
 
2012-08-16 12:19:03 PM

dukwbutter: Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Fully automatic weapons are very easy to get, proving you have no idea what you're talking about. All you need is a class III firearms permit. People do, in fact, routinely refer to semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns as "automatics", and, if you knew anything about guns (aside from what you read on the intertubes), then you'd know this.


No, for a Class 3 you need a FFL first and then you can become a SOT.

Unless you're mistakenly referring to a tax stamp as a "class III firearms permit". Which it isn't.
 
2012-08-16 12:20:19 PM

PiffMan420: Watch the FRC start whining about their hate group status on right-wing media after this shiat. "They painted a target on our backs" will be the line. They just won a major propaganda victory against the gay rights movement and can demonize activists like never before.
.


The FRC started this whine about 10 minutes after the incident. If you ask their supporters if they approve of the actions that got the FRC said label, they shut up and go away.
 
2012-08-16 12:21:28 PM
I have an uber liberal friend, who lives overseas now. When its a right wing nut with a gun going crazy, he floods his facebook page with articles and his own opinions about guns, America, and right wingers. When its a lefty who has flipped out, his page goes into media blackout, nary a mention of it. He is either choosing to ignore it, or the places he goes for news isn't reporting it
 
2012-08-16 12:22:15 PM

BigNumber12: Subby gets major points for:

1) Correct use of an apostrophe
2) Outing a number of wannabe grammar Nazis who should probably brush up before attempting to cast stones


Really? Well I guess the apostrophe in "it's" is correct. Please explain how the apostrophe in "volunteer's" is used correctly.
 
2012-08-16 12:22:50 PM
I'm pretty sure dukwbutter is just trolling. At least I hope so. That kind of aggressive ignorance would be dangerous if it were real.
 
2012-08-16 12:24:42 PM

vogonity: BigNumber12: Subby gets major points for:

1) Correct use of an apostrophe
2) Outing a number of wannabe grammar Nazis who should probably brush up before attempting to cast stones

Really? Well I guess the apostrophe in "it's" is correct. Please explain how the apostrophe in "volunteer's" is used correctly.


The object being possessed by the volunteer is the action "carrying Chick-Fil-a bag and automatic weapon into conservative group's headquarters".

/right?
 
2012-08-16 12:24:52 PM

Dimensio: Englebert Slaptyback: Dimensio

I am still attempting to locate the "quote" button.


Seriously?

It's that little square button next to the date. The button has quotation marks on it for some reason.


[members.iglou.com image 659x170]

Evidently I am of below average intelligence. Perhaps you could highlight the specific location of the "little square button next to the date".


You gotta be logged in first, ie: from the very top of the page it should indicate you are logged in, and your browser and its relation to cookies and/or javascript could be a factor as well.

I think FARK's login management system leaves a bit to be desired, but I have seen very few that don't suck or require me to link to facebook...
 
2012-08-16 12:25:01 PM

vogonity: Really? Well I guess the apostrophe in "it's" is correct. Please explain how the apostrophe in "volunteer's" is used correctly.


We've decided that it's supposed to be a possessive, but the rest of the headline is still painfully wrong, so mea culpa.
 
2012-08-16 12:25:06 PM

Ker_Thwap:
I'm a moderate, so I tend to piss off twice as many people. That said, I see plenty of hateful left wing speech also. The most recent example I can think of was "I hope every Chik Fil A franchise owner and his family starves." I don't think people even stop to consider how things they say can be hateful when they're all caught up in being moral.


I would not consider an "I hope" to be hatespeech. If someone had said "Every Chick-Fil-A franchise owner is a pedophile" (which is the same as what FRC did) I'd consider that hatespeech. No one goes out and shoots someone because someone hopes they starve. If you're saying people have committed crimes, and the cops won't do anything about it, you're inviting the mentally unstable to do your dirty work for you.
Of course, then you have idiots who claim there is no hatespeech because you need to have a mind reader to know why people say things. Or as I call those folk...Idiots. 

Hatespeech is for people too cowardly to stand behind their actions, and too crazy to tell the truth.
 
2012-08-16 12:26:25 PM

Fish in a Barrel: vogonity: BigNumber12: Subby gets major points for:

1) Correct use of an apostrophe
2) Outing a number of wannabe grammar Nazis who should probably brush up before attempting to cast stones

Really? Well I guess the apostrophe in "it's" is correct. Please explain how the apostrophe in "volunteer's" is used correctly.

The object being possessed by the volunteer is the action "carrying Chick-Fil-a bag and automatic weapon into conservative group's headquarters".

/right?


Yup, but that's a bit sloppy, hence the amount of confusion. I'm fixing to get me one o' them there ditchy ordinaries and find me some learnings on this here.
 
2012-08-16 12:26:54 PM
Goddamn gays and their handguns.
 
2012-08-16 12:27:37 PM

Dimensio: [members.iglou.com image 659x170]


Dropping the grammatical debate for a moment: Hitting Ctrl-F5 got my quote buttons to reappear, so try that and see if it works?
 
2012-08-16 12:28:21 PM
cycle23: You gotta be logged in first, ie: from the very top of the page it should indicate you are logged in, and your browser and its relation to cookies and/or javascript could be a factor as well.

I am "logged in", and the problem persists across multiple web browsers and two different computer systems.
 
2012-08-16 12:30:26 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: Mikey1969: The 'of' makes the thing a little tighter, but if it isn't grammatically accurate, it's not because of apostrophes.

Like I said before, whether it was supposed to be a mangled plural or a mangled possessive (I didn't see it as being a possessive because that just makes the rest of it even more wrong), it was still mangled to the point of being comprehended in a dozen different ways by a dozen different people. Therefore, not a good headline. We can all agree on that, yes?


It is a bit awkward... I think the 'Carrying of a gun' would have fixed it. Not sure how the possessive would have made it 'more wrong', but it's not the smoothest Fark headline out there, that's for sure.
 
2012-08-16 12:30:44 PM

odinsposse: Maybe he was just doing that moral exchange thing people were talking about. You know, you eat at Chik-Fil-a and then donate money to a pro-gay group. He just decided to shoot up some anti-gay people instead.

Also, can anyone think of another instance of an angry crazy liberal shooting up anything? This may be the first time.


We could take a survey down at the local state prison.

What is not strange is that people who think of guns as being tools for killing people use guns for killing people. As an example, one of the Columbine shooters had a parent who was an anti-gun activist. I can only assume that the parent didn't reserve their lectures on what guns are for for the general public.
 
2012-08-16 12:31:31 PM

Dimensio: cycle23: You gotta be logged in first, ie: from the very top of the page it should indicate you are logged in, and your browser and its relation to cookies and/or javascript could be a factor as well.

I am "logged in", and the problem persists across multiple web browsers and two different computer systems.


Cookies enabled? Fark.com scripts enabled? That's the minimum I've found to work for me, but even then sometimes it seems hit or miss.
 
2012-08-16 12:34:24 PM

vogonity: BigNumber12: Subby gets major points for:

1) Correct use of an apostrophe
2) Outing a number of wannabe grammar Nazis who should probably brush up before attempting to cast stones

Really? Well I guess the apostrophe in "it's" is correct. Please explain how the apostrophe in "volunteer's" is used correctly.



Possession. The carrying belongs to the volunteer.

Point #3 under "Double nature of the gerund"
 
2012-08-16 12:35:43 PM

Dimensio: Evidently I am of below average intelligence. Perhaps you could highlight the specific location of the "little square button next to the date".


Weird...Whar button? WHAR?!
 
2012-08-16 12:36:39 PM
I believe this was really just a right wing church nut posing as a LGBT volunteer to drive up sympathy for the devil...
 
2012-08-16 12:39:34 PM
YOUR BLOG STILL SUCKS, JAMMIE-WEARING ADMIN!
 
2012-08-16 12:41:08 PM
FTFA: ... The most recent obsession of the angry, gay left...
...They're shocked-shocked!-to discover [the DC LGBT Community Center's] angry, hate-filled rhetoric has resulted in violence...


Yes. They should stick to peaceful statements, like telling their detractors to die, that god hates them, god hates America because it permits them to live, that they are what's wrong with America, and they're going to hell.

Peaceful, loving, Christian statements like that.
 
2012-08-16 12:44:21 PM

dukwbutter: CAADbury: dukwbutter: Shove it up your ass nimrod. You dont know shiat about guns. I grew up with them. Semi-automatic weapons are commonly referred to as "automatics". This is true of shotguns, pistols, and rifles. You wouldnt know because youre a liberal douche and have never fired a gun.

Yes. The truth hurts Caadbury. Post LOL WUT when you dont understand something. Then post some bait jpg when youre proven to be an ignorant liberal douche. Well played, obama fan!


Medication. Take it.
 
2012-08-16 12:45:38 PM

LabGrrl: Ker_


My example was "in kind" to their example. "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell." The likelihood of either statement coming true is equally implausible.
 
2012-08-16 12:45:44 PM

vogonity: BigNumber12: Subby gets major points for:

1) Correct use of an apostrophe
2) Outing a number of wannabe grammar Nazis who should probably brush up before attempting to cast stones

Really? Well I guess the apostrophe in "it's" is correct. Please explain how the apostrophe in "volunteer's" is used correctly.


Because he is the volunteer, and it is his carrying of the gun that is being described. Really, the word 'of' is missing.

'Mike's carrying of a gun into...'

'The volunteer's carrying of a gun into...'
 
2012-08-16 12:46:04 PM
Dimensio

Perhaps, were the author to identify specific "angry, hate-filled rhetoric", the author's claims and conclusions would be more viable.
Let me help you with that...
'Tastes Like Hate': Torrance Chick-Fil-A Vandalized Ahead Of 'Same Sex Kiss Day'

Chick-Fil-A Vandalized... The vandalism comes just one day after gay rights activists...

Frederick Chick-fil-A restaurant vandalized with...

Bomb threat closes W. Va. Chick-fil-A on 'appreciation day'


Adam Smith, Chick-Fil-A Drive-Through Bully, Hassles Fast Food Employee


Anyone who eats at Chick-fil-A "deserves to get the cancer


.... or you could peruse the half dozen or so fark threads where fellow farkers call for and support violence.

Warlordtrooper : Shooter deserves the hero tag. It's about time the left responds

insertsnarkyusername : And I may be a horrible person but nothing that happens to that organization is less than what they deserve.
^Commenting on the shooter.

There are more, but I'm not wading through that muck again.
 
2012-08-16 12:46:53 PM

Ker_Thwap: "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell."


Not even remotely.
 
2012-08-16 12:48:07 PM

tricycleracer: tricycleracer: If the Republican party wanted to ban cookies and I walked into a Romney campaign office with a pack of Famous Amos and a .380 am I being "political"?

Wow, really hate the placement of the "Add Comment" button.


Why? It's at the bottom right of the comment box, where else should it be? We read left to right, top to bottom, so the bottom right is the natural ending point. I like that the whole thing has been cleaned the fark up, and they added a 'Preview' button, since turning the 'Preview before reply' on and off was totally non-intuitive in comparison.
 
2012-08-16 12:48:34 PM

LasersHurt: Rostin: LasersHurt: Yes, the LGBT community is so well known for their angry, hateful rhetoric inciting violence. duh.

I realize you meant this as a joke, but in all seriousness, they have consistently dehumanized their ideological opponents by calling them "anti-gay," "bigots," "homophobes," "hateful," and the like for quite a long time. The Family Research Council has even been officially designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. And then this Chik-fil-a thing happens. Dan Cathy, a known conservative Christian who directs a small fraction of his otherwise laudable charitable giving toward "anti-gay" causes, responds to a direct question from a journalist who works for a Christian publication by saying that he supports "traditional" marriage and the "biblical" understanding of family, and for two or three weeks solid, everyone loses their shiat and acts like he'shiatler reincarnated. Frankly, it's amazing that it took this long for something like this to happen.

They're not "dehumanizing" them by calling them anti-gay, or bigots, or homophobes. They're accurately labelling them. Those are just adjectives - adjectives that apply to humans, of course, who are individuals, alive, and worthy of not being killed.

My point is this - you rarely to never see pro-LGBT people recommending violence specifically. They are very public about their opinions of people who don't support LGBT rights, sure, but that's not an incitement to violence. I find that's a specific requirement that's often glossed over in these matters, on either side of the ideological fence. Sometimes people overreact to disagreeing by thinking it's an incitement to violence.

Of course some people overreact by shooting people, and, well, that's bad.


Maybe dehumanized is the wrong word, but so is the phobe part of homophobe. Not liking does not equal scared.
 
2012-08-16 12:49:23 PM

Biological Ali: Ker_Thwap: "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell."

Not even remotely.


i just hope y'all stub your toes on a cold winter's morn.
 
2012-08-16 12:49:53 PM
What's wrong with carrying a gun into a conservative group's headquarters? 2nd Amendment not in effect there or something?
 
2012-08-16 12:50:14 PM

LasersHurt: ... They actually say that they do not support equal rights for homosexuals. That's not a subtle inference.


That's a good example of what I'm talking about. I think you'd struggle to find a single instance of someone actually saying that they oppose "equal rights" for gay people. That's an interpretation or conclusion about their motives that you've arrived at by prejudicially combining their actual words with your own assumptions, assumptions that they don't share. Dan Cathy says that he supports "traditional" marriage, and he gives money to organizations that try to make that understanding of marriage more explicit in our laws, but I doubt he would agree that he opposes equal rights for gay people. In fact I've heard lots of gay marriage opponents say that no one is preventing gay people from entering into genuine marriages with whomever they can get to consent to that arrangement. The fact that some people experience same-sex attraction is of secondary importance to them. The definition of marriage is what matters.

You are welcome to disagree with their framing of the issue, or to disagree that marriage is what they say that it is, but claiming that they oppose equal rights is to impute to them a rationale or motivation that is simply false in many cases. It's also hard to see why you do so if not to, again, create an emotional response and short circuit empathy toward them. I mean, gosh, we're all Americans here, right? Surely only really awful people oppose equal rights...

There's a close parallel here with what pro-life people do when they call abortion providers "murderers." According to the internal logic of their position, they indeed are murderers. But of course the doctors and nurses and so on don't share that logic, and it would be ridiculous to say that "murder" is just an "accurate label" for the services they provide.
 
2012-08-16 12:50:53 PM

pute kisses like a man: Biological Ali: Ker_Thwap: "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell."

Not even remotely.

i just hope y'all stub your toes on a cold winter's morn.


Now that was truly uncalled for.
 
2012-08-16 12:51:00 PM

pute kisses like a man: Biological Ali: Ker_Thwap: "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell."

Not even remotely.

i just hope y'all stub your toes on a cold winter's morn.


damn, hate the new comment button. was planning on typing that, looking at my useless post, and then going back and reading what you were even talking about, in case I didn't want to become a part of it... no I really jumped right in it.

/ fortunately for me, I said nothing of substance. the best way to avoid deadly fark entanglements.
 
2012-08-16 12:51:07 PM

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Dimensio: Evidently I am of below average intelligence. Perhaps you could highlight the specific location of the "little square button next to the date".

Weird...Whar button? WHAR?!


This has got to be a browser of cookies issue. I had some problems with the quote button working yesterday, but I am having no problems now. Maybe something related to people's AdBlock or privacy settings, who knows? Personally, the new change is working perfectly for me.
 
2012-08-16 12:52:08 PM

Biological Ali: Ker_Thwap: "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell."

Not even remotely.


You're right, burn in hell is just silly. Hell is a figment of the imagination. It's like saying I hope you get impaled by a unicorn in our space. Starvation on the other hand is a very real thing. Wishing someone to starve is therefore far far worse. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2012-08-16 12:52:12 PM

Biological Ali: pute kisses like a man: Biological Ali: Ker_Thwap: "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell."

Not even remotely.

i just hope y'all stub your toes on a cold winter's morn.

Now that was truly uncalled for.


sorry, see above apologia that doesn't admit guilt... now I'll go ahead and say sorry

/ hates cold, stubbed toes more than hell itself, which is actually just summer where I live.
 
2012-08-16 12:52:45 PM

OnlyM3: .... or you could peruse the half dozen or so fark threads where fellow farkers call for and support violence.


Or you could throw a freaking dart at your keyboard and link to a story filled with people on the Right calling for the same.

Nice try though.
 
2012-08-16 12:53:21 PM

Ker_Thwap: LabGrrl: Ker_

My example was "in kind" to their example. "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell." The likelihood of either statement coming true is equally implausible.


I was pointing out that it's a false equivalence. The thing that got FRC labeled a hate group was saying that their opponents were pedophiles. There are anti-gay groups that keep their rhetoric to the burn in hell and god hates you stuff. They are hateful people, no doubt, but if a group goes around accusing people of crimes they did not commit, and society doesn't care to reign them in, they are eventually going to incite some mentally unstable person to "fix" the situation, either by putting an end to the "crimes" going on (which aren't going on at all) or by putting an end to the people claiming the crimes are going on.

The other option FRC had in response to being labeled a hate group would be to keep their criticism in the outer realms of reality...you know, if you believe people are going to hell, say that...but to say there is a cover-up going on of a massive crime against children when there is plenty of evidence against that, that's just trying to get your enemies killed and maimed, and sometimes it's going to backfire on you.
 
2012-08-16 12:54:34 PM

Biological Ali: Ker_Thwap: "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell."

Not even remotely.


Yeah, only one is possible...

/unless you mean in Michigan...
 
2012-08-16 12:54:36 PM

Ker_Thwap: Biological Ali: Ker_Thwap: "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell."

Not even remotely.

You're right, burn in hell is just silly. Hell is a figment of the imagination. It's like saying I hope you get impaled by a unicorn in our space. Starvation on the other hand is a very real thing. Wishing someone to starve is therefore far far worse. Thanks for clearing that up.


You do realize that the people who say "burn in hell" generally don't regard it as a "figment of the imagination", right?
 
2012-08-16 12:57:55 PM
i have to say burn in hell is less harmful because all it implies is that your brain doesn't work. and it needs to "simmer down" or 'burn in HELL" while it resolves what's wrong with it.
 
2012-08-16 12:58:13 PM

Rostin: LasersHurt: ... They actually say that they do not support equal rights for homosexuals. That's not a subtle inference.

That's a good example of what I'm talking about. I think you'd struggle to find a single instance of someone actually saying that they oppose "equal rights" for gay people. That's an interpretation or conclusion about their motives that you've arrived at by prejudicially combining their actual words with your own assumptions, assumptions that they don't share. Dan Cathy says that he supports "traditional" marriage, and he gives money to organizations that try to make that understanding of marriage more explicit in our laws, but I doubt he would agree that he opposes equal rights for gay people. In fact I've heard lots of gay marriage opponents say that no one is preventing gay people from entering into genuine marriages with whomever they can get to consent to that arrangement. The fact that some people experience same-sex attraction is of secondary importance to them. The definition of marriage is what matters.

You are welcome to disagree with their framing of the issue, or to disagree that marriage is what they say that it is, but claiming that they oppose equal rights is to impute to them a rationale or motivation that is simply false in many cases. It's also hard to see why you do so if not to, again, create an emotional response and short circuit empathy toward them. I mean, gosh, we're all Americans here, right? Surely only really awful people oppose equal rights...

There's a close parallel here with what pro-life people do when they call abortion providers "murderers." According to the internal logic of their position, they indeed are murderers. But of course the doctors and nurses and so on don't share that logic, and it would be ridiculous to say that "murder" is just an "accurate label" for the services they provide.


That right there? That's a prime example of dissembling. Kudos on your intellectual dishonesty.
 
2012-08-16 12:59:20 PM

Kuroshin: That right there? That's a prime example of dissembling. Kudos on your intellectual dishonesty.


Prove it.
 
2012-08-16 12:59:59 PM
Mikey1969:Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Dimensio: Evidently I am of below average intelligence. Perhaps you could highlight the specific location of the "little square button next to the date".

Weird...Whar button? WHAR?!

This has got to be a browser of cookies issue. I had some problems with the quote button working yesterday, but I am having no problems now. Maybe something related to people's AdBlock or privacy settings, who knows? Personally, the new change is working perfectly for me.


There's also something b0rken in the user preferences page, seeing "print_boolean_pref(viewer = context.viewer, objfield_name = 'pref_reload_on_post'); print_boolean_pref(viewer = context.viewer, objfield_name = 'pref_html_tool') %] " in a few places.
 
2012-08-16 01:00:10 PM

Rostin: LasersHurt: ... They actually say that they do not support equal rights for homosexuals. That's not a subtle inference.

That's a good example of what I'm talking about....


It's easier to sell "I support traditional marriage" than it is to convince people to deny basic rights to a class of people just because you disagree with them. Just because groups like FRC don't say it in exactly those words doesn't mean that they don't explicitly oppose gay marriage.
 
2012-08-16 01:02:16 PM

LabGrrl: Ker_Thwap: LabGrrl: Ker_

My example was "in kind" to their example. "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell." The likelihood of either statement coming true is equally implausible.

I was pointing out that it's a false equivalence. The thing that got FRC labeled a hate group was saying that their opponents were pedophiles. There are anti-gay groups that keep their rhetoric to the burn in hell and god hates you stuff. They are hateful people, no doubt, but if a group goes around accusing people of crimes they did not commit, and society doesn't care to reign them in, they are eventually going to incite some mentally unstable person to "fix" the situation, either by putting an end to the "crimes" going on (which aren't going on at all) or by putting an end to the people claiming the crimes are going on.

The other option FRC had in response to being labeled a hate group would be to keep their criticism in the outer realms of reality...you know, if you believe people are going to hell, say that...but to say there is a cover-up going on of a massive crime against children when there is plenty of evidence against that, that's just trying to get your enemies killed and maimed, and sometimes it's going to backfire on you.


I completely understand with you and agree about the false equivalence. However, you could have equally applied such false equivalence to the initial poster who used "burn in hell." as their example.

I'm not trying to debate the issue at hand. I'm just pointing out that both sides use hateful speech.
 
2012-08-16 01:03:35 PM

OnlyM3: Let me help you with that...
'Tastes Like Hate': Torrance Chick-Fil-A Vandalized Ahead Of 'Same Sex Kiss Day'

Chick-Fil-A Vandalized... The vandalism comes just one day after gay rights activists...

Frederick Chick-fil-A restaurant vandalized with...

Bomb threat closes W. Va. Chick-fil-A on 'appreciation day'


Adam Smith, Chick-Fil-A Drive-Through Bully, Hassles Fast Food Employee

Anyone who eats at Chick-fil-A "deserves to get the cancer


Which of those statements or actions were stated or committed by a representative of the DC Center for the LGBT Community, who is the subject referenced by the pronouns "they" and "their" in the author's statement "They're shocked-shocked!-to discover their angry, hate-filled rhetoric has resulted in violence."?
 
2012-08-16 01:05:24 PM

Voiceofreason01: Rostin: LasersHurt: ... They actually say that they do not support equal rights for homosexuals. That's not a subtle inference.

That's a good example of what I'm talking about....

It's easier to sell "I support traditional marriage" than it is to convince people to deny basic rights to a class of people just because you disagree with them. Just because groups like FRC don't say it in exactly those words doesn't mean that they don't explicitly oppose gay marriage.


And just so we're clear, the FRC does more than just "oppose gay marriage". In fact, that might actually be the least hateful stance they have, at least in comparison to things like calling for the criminalization of homosexuality itself and spuriously asserting a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
 
2012-08-16 01:05:31 PM

Rostin: Kuroshin: That right there? That's a prime example of dissembling. Kudos on your intellectual dishonesty.

Prove it.


Cathy has given millions of dollars to organizations that explicitly oppose Gay marriage....so there is that
 
2012-08-16 01:06:48 PM

Biological Ali: Ker_Thwap: Biological Ali: Ker_Thwap: "I hope you starve" is equally hateful as "burn in hell."

Not even remotely.

You're right, burn in hell is just silly. Hell is a figment of the imagination. It's like saying I hope you get impaled by a unicorn in our space. Starvation on the other hand is a very real thing. Wishing someone to starve is therefore far far worse. Thanks for clearing that up.

You do realize that the people who say "burn in hell" generally don't regard it as a "figment of the imagination", right?


Of course I realize that. They can mean it to be hateful all they want. But, I'm not going to buy into their fantasy just so I can feel some good old righteous indignation.
 
2012-08-16 01:07:02 PM
Biological Ali: Voiceofreason01: Rostin: LasersHurt: ... They actually say that they do not support equal rights for homosexuals. That's not a subtle inference.

That's a good example of what I'm talking about....

It's easier to sell "I support traditional marriage" than it is to convince people to deny basic rights to a class of people just because you disagree with them. Just because groups like FRC don't say it in exactly those words doesn't mean that they don't explicitly oppose gay marriage.

And just so we're clear, the FRC does more than just "oppose gay marriage". In fact, that might actually be the least hateful stance they have, at least in comparison to things like calling for the criminalization of homosexuality itself and spuriously asserting a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.


Did not the Family Research Council also explicitly advocate kidnapping children raised by same-sex couples?
 
2012-08-16 01:08:12 PM

Kuroshin: That right there? That's a prime example of dissembling. Kudos on your intellectual dishonesty.


That was truly a thing of beauty. A master at work.
 
2012-08-16 01:10:20 PM

BuckTurgidson: Mikey1969:Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Dimensio: Evidently I am of below average intelligence. Perhaps you could highlight the specific location of the "little square button next to the date".

Weird...Whar button? WHAR?!

This has got to be a browser of cookies issue. I had some problems with the quote button working yesterday, but I am having no problems now. Maybe something related to people's AdBlock or privacy settings, who knows? Personally, the new change is working perfectly for me.

There's also something b0rken in the user preferences page, seeing "print_boolean_pref(viewer = context.viewer, objfield_name = 'pref_reload_on_post'); print_boolean_pref(viewer = context.viewer, objfield_name = 'pref_html_tool') %] " in a few places.


That's working fine for me also. Weird... Sorry guys, wish I could pass on my 'magic secret' on this, I think I just got lucky, that's all.
 
2012-08-16 01:10:58 PM

Ker_Thwap: You're right, burn in hell is just silly. Hell is a figment of the imagination. It's like saying I hope you get impaled by a unicorn in our space.



I thought that international treaties prevented our claiming any of it for ourselves?! If that's not true,

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
 
2012-08-16 01:11:36 PM

Arcanum: I'm pretty conservative. Most here would think I'm very conservative.

It's annoying as all hell when some nutjob is associated with a conservative movement.

It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say this nutjob is associated with the gay marriage movement.

he's just crazy. Our various disagreements are not affected. Abortion's wrongfulness is not alleviated when some monster bombs a clinic. Gabby Giffords doesn't become right about politics when some monster shoots her. The Gay marriage movement shouldn't be ashamed of some nutjob.

This should be obvious, and I hope the right doesn't make hay out of this psycho. But I also hope the left doesn't make hay when it has the chance. It's annoying as hell.


You're wasting your breath. Neither side of the political spectrum can grasp the concept that crazy people do crazy things.
 
2012-08-16 01:12:17 PM

Ker_Thwap:
I completely understand with you and agree about the false equivalence. However, you could have equally applied such false equivalence to the initial poster who used "burn in hell." as their example.

I'm not trying to debate the issue at hand. I'm just pointing out that both sides use hateful speech.


Shrug. I just don't see it. Burn in hell and I hope you starve are nasty speech, maybe even mean speech, maybe even speech that hateful people make. I'd say speech motivated solely by hate, not religion, not beliefs, NOT EVEN REALITY is required if we want to have a category of speech called hate speech.

I hope you starve...hateful. "Someone should go to your house and sew your mouth shut so you slowly starve" Hate-speech. "Burn in hell" hateful. "Someone should set you on fire" hate-speech.

Wasn't singling you out, btw. Hope you didn't feel that way. It's just every time ANYONE removes the implied (or obvious) threats in the hate-speech it helps the hategroup narrative of "we didn't do anything wrong."
 
2012-08-16 01:12:20 PM

Ker_Thwap: Of course I realize that. They can mean it to be hateful all they want. But, I'm not going to buy into their fantasy just so I can feel some good old righteous indignation.


You don't have to "buy into their fantasy" - you merely have to realize that they're actually wishing harm and suffering on a person far in excess of something like "starving to death". Your outsider's perspective regarding the plausibility of their wish doesn't somehow make their stance any less hateful.
 
2012-08-16 01:12:22 PM

Dimensio: Did not the Family Research Council also explicitly advocate kidnapping children raised by same-sex couples?


I believe that was the American Family Association.
 
2012-08-16 01:12:59 PM

MFAWG: A huge, black, gay man with a gun?

Pretty much the nightmare scenario in Jesusland.


You forgot athiest and/or Jew.
 
2012-08-16 01:13:05 PM

Ker_Thwap: jodaveki


Smartest
Funniest

2012-08-16 12:07:57 PM

Hmh. Hateful speech from the LGBT community.

From the L. G. B. T. Community.

Hateful. As in "I hate you and want you to burn in hell."

I see.

I'm a moderate, so I tend to piss off twice as many people. That said, I see plenty of hateful left wing speech also. The most recent example I can think of was "I hope every Chik Fil A franchise owner and his family starves." I don't think people even stop to consider how things they say can be hateful when they're all caught up in being moral.


LGBT: "I'd like marry my partner whom I love and to whom I commit myself."
FRC: "You degrade marriage and disparage commitment."

LGBT: "I want to adopt children and raise them to be good people who make the world a better place."
FRC: "You want to pervert children and convert them to homosexuality, and you will damage them psychologically so that they become maladjusted sociopaths."

LGBT: "I want to be free of discrimination in the workplace based on my sexuality."
FRC: "Your sexuality is an affront to Christian employers and they shouldn't have tolerate your presence."

LGBT: "I want to be able to care for and visit in the hospital my dying partner, and have th power to sort out their affairs since I've lived with them for so many years."
FRC: "Yours is a kind that is so perverted it cannot be termed 'love,' and you are unfit to give final comfort in their last hours."

LGBT: "I hope you and your ilk starve."
FRC: "You will burn in hell for eternity."

Yah. Both sides. Hateful.
 
2012-08-16 01:13:16 PM

Dimensio:
Did not the Family Research Council also explicitly advocate kidnapping children raised by same-sex couples?


That was the AFC. FRC is the one who said the gays are going to rape your kids.
 
2012-08-16 01:14:33 PM

Mr.Tangent: Dimensio: Did not the Family Research Council also explicitly advocate kidnapping children raised by same-sex couples?

I believe that was the American Family Association.


I think that was the one. Or one of the many hate groups with "Family" somewhere in their name.
 
2012-08-16 01:14:55 PM

LabGrrl: Dimensio:
Did not the Family Research Council also explicitly advocate kidnapping children raised by same-sex couples?

That was the AFC. FRC is the one who said the gays are going to rape your kids.


Mr.Tangent is correct. AFA-not AFC. At this point we should just call them something something alleged family something.
 
2012-08-16 01:15:02 PM

Rostin: Kuroshin: That right there? That's a prime example of dissembling. Kudos on your intellectual dishonesty.

Prove it.


Prove your dissembling? Prove that the fundies who...well, fund efforts to criminalize homosexuality happen to hate homosexuals? Prove what?

Hiding behind literal definitions in spite of the spirit and intention of the words is dissembling. There, proven.

I don't need to prove the other, because we see it here on Fark every day. Hell, I see it in my In Box every morning when my fundie relatives wake up. Take your pick from any number of threads and sources. Do you want me to prove the Sun is hot or that the sky is blue?
 
2012-08-16 01:15:11 PM

meanmutton: CommieTaoist: So it's only relevant to point out links when someone idiot on the left does it yet how dare anyone mention such links when the idiot is a tea bagger, right?

/your blog sucks

Can you please point out when there was a politically motivated attack perpetuated by someone who was politically active in conservative politics?


Timothy McVeigh.
 
2012-08-16 01:15:49 PM

BigNumber12: Ker_Thwap: You're right, burn in hell is just silly. Hell is a figment of the imagination. It's like saying I hope you get impaled by a unicorn in our space.


I thought that international treaties prevented our claiming any of it for ourselves?! If that's not true,

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!


Hee hee. Sadly, I typo'd outer space. But let's go with your interpretation, it's more fun.
 
2012-08-16 01:15:53 PM

JustGetItRight: Arcanum: I'm pretty conservative. Most here would think I'm very conservative.

It's annoying as all hell when some nutjob is associated with a conservative movement.

It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say this nutjob is associated with the gay marriage movement.

he's just crazy. Our various disagreements are not affected. Abortion's wrongfulness is not alleviated when some monster bombs a clinic. Gabby Giffords doesn't become right about politics when some monster shoots her. The Gay marriage movement shouldn't be ashamed of some nutjob.

This should be obvious, and I hope the right doesn't make hay out of this psycho. But I also hope the left doesn't make hay when it has the chance. It's annoying as hell.

You're wasting your breath. Neither side of the political spectrum can grasp the concept that crazy people do crazy things.


It kinda pisses me off that even something as simplistic as the left-right political spectrum has been simplified even more so that it's not even a spectrum anymore, just two sides.
 
2012-08-16 01:16:14 PM

LabGrrl: That was the AFC. FRC is the one who said the gays are going to rape your kids


i1105.photobucket.com
fark the AFA!
 
2012-08-16 01:16:59 PM

LasersHurt: Yes, the LGBT community is so well known for their angry, hateful rhetoric inciting violence. duh.


You did not go to a small northeastern liberal arts college, did you. I didn't think so.
 
2012-08-16 01:17:56 PM

IvanTheSilent:

Timothy McVeigh.

They'll say McVeigh wasn't really a conservative. (No, really, I've seen it.)

I've also seen them say Eric Rudolph didn't claim to be a Christian.

...Can I Guiliani the thread and point out that you don't get much more pro-god, anti-gay and right wing than the 9-11 hijackers?
 
2012-08-16 01:18:42 PM
LabGrrl: Dimensio:
Did not the Family Research Council also explicitly advocate kidnapping children raised by same-sex couples?

That was the AFC. FRC is the one who said the gays are going to rape your kids.


I cannot even be within close proximity of children without experiencing severe anxiety. Prolonged exposure may potentially cause me to experience a nervous breakdown. Any fear that I am a danger to children for any reason is unfounded and irrational, however I have always observed opponents of civil liberties for non-heterosexuals to be irrational and dishonest.

Perhaps the organization has confused pedophobia with pedophilia.
 
2012-08-16 01:19:29 PM

Voiceofreason01: Rostin: LasersHurt: ... They actually say that they do not support equal rights for homosexuals. That's not a subtle inference.

That's a good example of what I'm talking about....

It's easier to sell "I support traditional marriage" than it is to convince people to deny basic rights to a class of people just because you disagree with them. Just because groups like FRC don't say it in exactly those words doesn't mean that they don't explicitly oppose gay marriage.


This is a conversation between LasersHurt and I that you probably haven't read all of, or else you'd know that wasn't my point. Even if it were, I think it's fair to say that at least some gay marriage opponents aren't just opponents of gay marriage, but also actual proponents of what they think of as real marriage. Focus on the Family is only known by many people as an "anti-gay" organization, but in fact has always done far more to promote good parenting and to strengthen what it considers real marriages than it has to oppose gay marriage. The same is true of WinShape, the Chik-fil-a charity. Dan Cathy's comment that he was concerned that God was going to punish America or whatever for what it's done to marriage, have been widely interpreted as a knock against gay marriage specifically, but if you listen to what he says in the two or three minutes leading up to it, it's pretty clear that he's talking about deteriorating attitudes about marriage in general, which in his mind includes, but is not limited to, growing acceptance of gay marriage. If you're interested, I can send you a few links to things written by gay marriage opponents which make it clear that they believe that gay marriage is mostly a symptom of rotten cultural attitudes about marriage, and that we can't afford to limit our focus only to it. I honestly don't know that much about the FRC, so I can't say for certain that they really don't mean only that they oppose gay marriage when they talk about traditional marriage (or, indeed, whether they use the term "traditional marriage"), but I do know that advocacy of "traditional marriage" is not simply opposition to "gay marriage" in many other cases.
 
2012-08-16 01:19:29 PM

Mr.Tangent: LabGrrl: That was the AFC. FRC is the one who said the gays are going to rape your kids

[i1105.photobucket.com image 435x244]
fark the AFA!


They used to be the Family Americia Association. Splitters!
 
2012-08-16 01:19:32 PM

Ker_Thwap: I'm not trying to debate the issue at hand. I'm just pointing out that both sides use hateful speech.


So... how should I vote?
 
2012-08-16 01:23:34 PM
Again Jodeveki,

Let's not build a straw man and put words in my mouth. I never said I supported one side of the other. You are arguing with yourself.

Someone said they were offended by the hate speech of "burn in hell." I pointed out that both sides often have said nasty things, both left and right. I did not specify FRC or the LGBT. That was all you. I'm a moderate, I have no horse in this race. Stop trying to make it seem like I'm supporting the FRC, it's tacky.
 
2012-08-16 01:29:44 PM

Rostin: Focus on the Family is only known by many people as an "anti-gay" organization...


Focus on the Family has made explicitly anti-gay and anti-gay marriage comments and Dan Cathy donates money to groups(like the National Organization for Marriage) that explicitly oppose gay marriage. You're being pretty dishonest in your interpretation here.
 
2012-08-16 01:30:36 PM

LabGrrl: ...Can I Guiliani the thread and point out that you don't get much more pro-god, anti-gay and right wing than the 9-11 hijackers?


Apples and oranges! How can you compare the children of Christ to evil Muslins?
 
2012-08-16 01:31:02 PM
BigNumber12 SmartestFunniest 2012-08-16 01:19:32 PM


Ker_Thwap: I'm not trying to debate the issue at hand. I'm just pointing out that both sides use hateful speech.

So... how should I vote?
 



Don't vote. Stay home and jerk off. At least something will be accomplished.
 
2012-08-16 01:33:00 PM

Voiceofreason01: Rostin: Kuroshin: That right there? That's a prime example of dissembling. Kudos on your intellectual dishonesty.

Prove it.

Cathy has given millions of dollars to organizations that explicitly oppose Gay marriage....so there is that


So? If that demonstrates that Cathy opposes equal rights for gay people or (worse yet) that he hates or irrationally fears gay people, then it also shows that it's fair to call donors to NARAL accomplices in the murder of babies. My point, which I think you perhaps missed if you read only the latest comment in the conversation that LasersHurt and I have been having, is that calling Dan Cathy a "bigot," etc, is not intended to convey objective, neutral information, but to dehumanize him by ignoring his real motivations and beliefs in favor of different ones that are intended to stir up animosity toward him.
 
2012-08-16 01:33:59 PM

Voiceofreason01: Cathy has given millions of dollars to organizations that explicitly oppose Gay marriage....so there is that


www.toplessrobot.com

What a biatch.
 
2012-08-16 01:37:06 PM

Mr.Tangent: LabGrrl: ...Can I Guiliani the thread and point out that you don't get much more pro-god, anti-gay and right wing than the 9-11 hijackers?

Apples and oranges! How can you compare the children of Christ to evil Muslins?


I can never tell the difference between Christians and Muslins and the Juice. One plays football, right?
 
2012-08-16 01:38:08 PM

BigNumber12: Ker_Thwap: I'm not trying to debate the issue at hand. I'm just pointing out that both sides use hateful speech.

So... how should I vote?


Darts? I tend to vote based on a huge pile of factors. I very rarely let a single issue decide for me. So often the person being elected doesn't even have it in their power to greatly influence that single issue that they're campaigning on. If a politician fixates on any one issue, I just assume they're trying to rock the naive vote. I still mock my liberal friends who elected Obama with the understanding he'd end all war and give them each a bunny.
I also mock conservative friends just to be fair.
 
2012-08-16 01:38:30 PM

Voiceofreason01: Rostin: Focus on the Family is only known by many people as an "anti-gay" organization...

Focus on the Family has made explicitly anti-gay and anti-gay marriage comments and Dan Cathy donates money to groups(like the National Organization for Marriage) that explicitly oppose gay marriage. You're being pretty dishonest in your interpretation here.


Read more carefully. I didn't say that Focus on the Family and Dan Cathy haven't opposed gay marriage. I just said that their advocacy of "traditional" marriage isn't limited to or identical to that opposition. In other words, their claimed support for "traditional" marriage isn't just careful marketing. They actually do support marriage, and they appear to view their opposition to gay marriage in that light, rather than as being simply "anti-gay."
 
2012-08-16 01:39:21 PM

Ker_Thwap: Again Jodeveki,

Let's not build a straw man and put words in my mouth. I never said I supported one side of the other. You are arguing with yourself.

Someone said they were offended by the hate speech of "burn in hell." I pointed out that both sides often have said nasty things, both left and right. I did not specify FRC or the LGBT. That was all you. I'm a moderate, I have no horse in this race. Stop trying to make it seem like I'm supporting the FRC, it's tacky.


Funny. I never said you said any of those things. Notice the names next to the quotes? It's an illustration of what the LGBT community has said and the FRC has said, more or less. Not you.

(What you just did is strawman: misrepresent what I was saying and attack that misrepresentation.)

If you'd re-read, I illustrate from where the hatespeech emanates. I know it's comfy to call yourself a moderate so you can appear above it all, or seem like the level-headed one and can we all just calm down cuz I understand both sides and you're just talking past each other-- but at some point, even moderates have to call a spade a spade.

The FRC is a farking shiatnozzle of hate that pretties its steaming bigotry-covered felch plate of self-righteousness up with biblical garnish.

Care for a slice?
 
2012-08-16 01:39:32 PM

BigNumber12: vogonity: BigNumber12: Subby gets major points for:

1) Correct use of an apostrophe
2) Outing a number of wannabe grammar Nazis who should probably brush up before attempting to cast stones

Really? Well I guess the apostrophe in "it's" is correct. Please explain how the apostrophe in "volunteer's" is used correctly.


Possession. The carrying belongs to the volunteer.

Point #3 under "Double nature of the gerund"


OK I'll concede that it's probably grammatically correct, but wouldn't it be more clear if the "'s" was dropped completely? "...LGBT volunteer carrying..."

But I have to admit that this is my Boobiesrophe Nazi that is probably at least technically wrong.

/But not wrong in spirit.
//No probably just wrong.
 
2012-08-16 01:42:07 PM

meanmutton: CommieTaoist: So it's only relevant to point out links when someone idiot on the left does it yet how dare anyone mention such links when the idiot is a tea bagger, right?

/your blog sucks

Can you please point out when there was a politically motivated attack perpetuated by someone who was politically active in conservative politics?


Sure, since you asked... Link

Incidentally, this took me 30 seconds on google - between that and the time it takes to read the article, you could become a somewhat more informed citizen in under ten minutes. Might be worth your time.
 
2012-08-16 01:42:11 PM

dukwbutter: fluffy2097: dukwbutter: Actually, you know nothing about guns and almost all 9mm's are "automatics". This means "semi-automatic". One trigger pull = 1 round fired = "automatic". The more you know, libtards.

lol.

I'm not even a gun person and I know you are wrong.

A manual gun has to be cocked each time you want to pull the trigger. A pump shotgun would be an example of this. Another example would be a bolt action rifle.

A semi-automatic gun ejects the spent shell casing and loads another round into the chamber, as well as cocking the weapon, allowing a shot to be fired every single time you pull the trigger without the shooter having to do anything else. Example, a 1911. a Glock 9mm, Desert Eagle

A fully automatic weapon is basically the same as an semi-automatic weapon but is designed to allow the weapon to cycle and fire rounds as long as the trigger is pulled. Since this is generally wasteful due to recoil pushing you off target, Automatic weapons frequently have a selector allowing you to use them in Semi automatic fire, fully automatic, and possibly a 3 round burst. Example: M16.

Fully automatic weapons are really hard to get ahold of legally unless you want to join the army and use an M16. Need a lot of permits and permission slips.

Some semi-automatic weapons can be modified to fire fully automatically, but it's highly illegal. I imagine a lot of semi-automatic weapons aren't able to withstand that kind of force without breaking down too

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Fully automatic weapons are very easy to get, proving you have no idea what you're talking about. All you need is a class III firearms permit. People do, in fact, routinely refer to semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns as "automatics", and, if you knew anything about guns (aside from what you read on the intertubes), then you'd know this.


And now a bit of education...

1. No one uses the term "manual gun" though I know what you are getting at...weapons that require the user to do something to load another round into the chamber. This includes pump action, lever action, bolt action. Rate of fire on such weapons can be nearly but not quite as fast as a semi-auto.

2. Revolvers can be single action or double action. They are almost exclusive handguns, but in the past they could also be shotguns or rifles. In a single-action revolver, the hammer is manually cocked, usually with the thumb of the firing or supporting hand. This action advances the cylinder to the next round and locks the cylinder in place with the chamber aligned with the barrel. The trigger, when pulled, releases the hammer, which fires the round in the chamber. To fire again, the hammer must be manually cocked again. Single action revolvers could be modified so that they could be "fanned out", firing rapidly, but not as rapidly as a semi-auto. In double-action, the stroke of the trigger pull generates three actions: (1) the hammer is pulled back to the cocked position (2) while the cylinder is being indexed to the next round, and then (3) the hammer is released to strike the firing pin. Thus double action means that a cocking action separate from the trigger pull is unnecessary; and every trigger pull will result in a complete cycle. Double action revolvers can be modified to be "fanned out" like a single action revolver, but they are already effectively semi-automatic.

3. A semi-automatic firearms fires a round with each pull of the trigger--that is also its effective rate of fire. An AR-15 is not capable of firing at the same effective rate of fire as an Army M-16A3, contrary to media reports. Semiautomatic rifles made to resemble the AK-47 are not a true AK-47s, contrary to Barrack Obama. They may or may not have a detachable magazine. Handguns, shotguns, and rifles can be semi-automatic.

4. Selective fire weapons can be fired on semiautomatic or automatic. Once primed, an automatic weapon will continue to expel spent rounds, chamber fresh rounds, and fire so long as the trigger is held down. Because of the recoil involved with selective fire weapons, they usually appear only as rifles, carbines, or submachine guns (essentially carbine-like weapons that fire pistol ammo used for close combat). Armies around the world issued selective fire weapons to their combat troops starting in World War II, though they were available before that time (the Thompson submachine gun being the most famous). Many army now issue selective fire weapons that fire semiautomatic or in burst mode. Burst mode automatically fires a fixed amount of ammunition so long as the trigger is held down. All selective fire weapons are magazine fed or less commonly, belt fed. US law prevents the ownership of selective fire weapons except to those who have special (and very expensive) permits.

5. Automatic weapons are weapons that are used primarily for firing in automatic mode, though some are actually selective fire weapons. They are usually operated by a crew that consists of a gunner and an ammo bearer who helps reload the weapon. Some machine guns require larger crews as the loading process and maintenance of the weapons is fairly labor intensive. Automatic weapons are with a few exceptions found exclusively in the hands of military units. Yes, it is possible for a civilian in the US to purchase a .50 cal machine gun, a typical crew-served automatic weapon. Expect to have a "working relationship" with the local BATF office--by that I mean bend over, spread cheeks, it makes the microscope go in easier. It is not easy to obtain one, they are very expensive, forget getting brand new, and only dedicated collectors even try.

6. Referring to semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns as "automatics" - I've heard the term used for semi-auto pistols, but never for rifles or shotguns.

7. "Machine gun" - A heavy, crew served automatic fire weapon. By popular lore and Hollywood, any military style weapon capable of automatic fire or giving the appearance of being capable of automatic fire.

8. "Street sweepers" - These are shotguns that are selective fire weapons. Illegal in the US for a civilian to own one. Actually shotguns are subject to other restrictions as well, such as barrel length, that rifles are not.
 
2012-08-16 01:42:14 PM
Oh, Ker-thwap, I never said you supported the FRC, either.
 
2012-08-16 01:43:23 PM

vogonity: BigNumber12: vogonity: BigNumber12: Subby gets major points for:
."

But I have to admit that this is my Boobiesrophe Nazi that is probably at least technically wrong.

FIlterpnwd. Nice.

 
2012-08-16 01:44:13 PM

Ker_Thwap: I very rarely let a single issue decide for me.



That's pretty farking unAmerican of you. If your favorite party, your favorite issue, and the candidate with the greatest "feel-good" factor don't align for you, just stay home and play video games on Election Day.
 
2012-08-16 01:44:35 PM

Rostin: So? If that demonstrates that Cathy opposes equal rights for gay people or (worse yet) that he hates or irrationally fears gay people, then it also shows that it's fair to call donors to NARAL accomplices in the murder of babies. My point, which I think you perhaps missed if you read only the latest comment in the conversation that LasersHurt and I have been having, is that calling Dan Cathy a "bigot," etc, is not intended to convey objective, neutral information, but to dehumanize him by ignoring his real motivations and beliefs in favor of different ones that are intended to stir up animosity toward him.


The assertion that Dan Cathy is only worried about the integrity of marriage in general when he's giving considerable sums of money to organizations that explicitly and solely oppose gay marriage seems to be a little disengenous to me.

/also: why would you think that people giving money to an organization that exists to end legal barriers to abortion have a problem with people getting abortions?
 
2012-08-16 01:46:30 PM

Rostin: Voiceofreason01: Rostin: Focus on the Family is only known by many people as an "anti-gay" organization...

Focus on the Family has made explicitly anti-gay and anti-gay marriage comments and Dan Cathy donates money to groups(like the National Organization for Marriage) that explicitly oppose gay marriage. You're being pretty dishonest in your interpretation here.

Read more carefully. I didn't say that Focus on the Family and Dan Cathy haven't opposed gay marriage. I just said that their advocacy of "traditional" marriage isn't limited to or identical to that opposition. In other words, their claimed support for "traditional" marriage isn't just careful marketing. They actually do support marriage, and they appear to view their opposition to gay marriage in that light, rather than as being simply "anti-gay."


So they're not bigots, they just want to limit the rights of people they don't agree with? I don't see how that's better.
 
2012-08-16 01:47:14 PM

jodaveki: Ker_Thwap: Again Jodeveki,

Let's not build a straw man and put words in my mouth. I never said I supported one side of the other. You are arguing with yourself.

Someone said they were offended by the hate speech of "burn in hell." I pointed out that both sides often have said nasty things, both left and right. I did not specify FRC or the LGBT. That was all you. I'm a moderate, I have no horse in this race. Stop trying to make it seem like I'm supporting the FRC, it's tacky.

Funny. I never said you said any of those things. Notice the names next to the quotes? It's an illustration of what the LGBT community has said and the FRC has said, more or less. Not you.

(What you just did is strawman: misrepresent what I was saying and attack that misrepresentation.)

If you'd re-read, I illustrate from where the hatespeech emanates. I know it's comfy to call yourself a moderate so you can appear above it all, or seem like the level-headed one and can we all just calm down cuz I understand both sides and you're just talking past each other-- but at some point, even moderates have to call a spade a spade.

The FRC is a farking shiatnozzle of hate that pretties its steaming bigotry-covered felch plate of self-righteousness up with biblical garnish.

Care for a slice?


As it turns out I have some really solid opinions, on the FRC. I just haven't shared them with you. I'm mostly just anti-hypocrite. As I stated in my very Boobies in this thread. I get cut off by impatient aholes with both Jesus Fish and Coexist bumper stickers.

Time for the semi productive portion of my day, I'm off, take care!
 
2012-08-16 01:47:30 PM

Kuroshin: Rostin: Kuroshin: That right there? That's a prime example of dissembling. Kudos on your intellectual dishonesty.

Prove it.

Prove your dissembling?


Yes, that.

Stop trying to be clever and tell me specifically what you think I said that was dissembling and intellectually dishonest, and why you think so. I'm not interested in trying to guess what you meant based on the poorly constructed rhetorical questions and vague accusations you make in your response.
 
2012-08-16 01:50:11 PM

Voiceofreason01: Rostin: Voiceofreason01: Rostin: Focus on the Family is only known by many people as an "anti-gay" organization...

Focus on the Family has made explicitly anti-gay and anti-gay marriage comments and Dan Cathy donates money to groups(like the National Organization for Marriage) that explicitly oppose gay marriage. You're being pretty dishonest in your interpretation here.

Read more carefully. I didn't say that Focus on the Family and Dan Cathy haven't opposed gay marriage. I just said that their advocacy of "traditional" marriage isn't limited to or identical to that opposition. In other words, their claimed support for "traditional" marriage isn't just careful marketing. They actually do support marriage, and they appear to view their opposition to gay marriage in that light, rather than as being simply "anti-gay."

So they're not bigots, they just want to limit the rights of people they don't agree with? I don't see how that's better.


You are either trolling, incapable of coherent thought, or too lazy to read what was said before you entered the conversation. Whichever it is, you are welcome to have the last word, if you want it.
 
2012-08-16 01:50:18 PM

Rostin: Voiceofreason01: Rostin: Kuroshin: That right there? That's a prime example of dissembling. Kudos on your intellectual dishonesty.

Prove it.

Cathy has given millions of dollars to organizations that explicitly oppose Gay marriage....so there is that

So? If that demonstrates that Cathy opposes equal rights for gay people or (worse yet) that he hates or irrationally fears gay people, then it also shows that it's fair to call donors to NARAL accomplices in the murder of babies. My point, which I think you perhaps missed if you read only the latest comment in the conversation that LasersHurt and I have been having, is that calling Dan Cathy a "bigot," etc, is not intended to convey objective, neutral information, but to dehumanize him by ignoring his real motivations and beliefs in favor of different ones that are intended to stir up animosity toward him.


As an outside observer, I get what your saying. You're making sense - these groups stand for a lot more than "anti-gay".

Course, the Nazi's stood for a lot more than "anti-Jew" too.

/sorry, couldn't resist.
 
2012-08-16 01:50:44 PM
How the heck does "Boobies" turn into Boobies? Is Fark just screwing with me?

Now I'm really off, really, maybe.
 
2012-08-16 01:53:55 PM

Mikey1969: BuckTurgidson: Mikey1969:Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Dimensio: Evidently I am of below average intelligence. Perhaps you could highlight the specific location of the "little square button next to the date".

Weird...Whar button? WHAR?!

This has got to be a browser of cookies issue. I had some problems with the quote button working yesterday, but I am having no problems now. Maybe something related to people's AdBlock or privacy settings, who knows? Personally, the new change is working perfectly for me.

There's also something b0rken in the user preferences page, seeing "print_boolean_pref(viewer = context.viewer, objfield_name = 'pref_reload_on_post'); print_boolean_pref(viewer = context.viewer, objfield_name = 'pref_html_tool') %] " in a few places.

That's working fine for me also. Weird... Sorry guys, wish I could pass on my 'magic secret' on this, I think I just got lucky, that's all.


Seems to be fixed now. One of the broken parts was the checkbox for Show HTML assistant tool and Reply buttons when posting comments (requires Javascript), which could help explain what was going on.
 
2012-08-16 01:54:59 PM
hey guys, is this thread where i share my outrage about Chic-Fil-A's hate chicken? or about how violent the anti-gay bigots are?

no? just gunna have a thread about figuring out the difference between automatic and semi-automatic guns?? and how to locate the quote button?

has anyone complained about the quality of the blog being linked, who cares if it's true or not? let's stay on topic here!
 
2012-08-16 01:54:59 PM

vogonity: OK I'll concede that it's probably grammatically correct, but wouldn't it be more clear if the "'s" was dropped completely? "...LGBT volunteer carrying..."

But I have to admit that this is my Boobiesrophe Nazi that is probably at least technically wrong.

/But not wrong in spirit.
//No probably just wrong.



English is a biatch of a language. I don't envy those who have to learn it as a second.
 
2012-08-16 01:59:01 PM

Elegy: Course, the Nazi's stood for a lot more than "anti-Jew" too.



See, vogonity: most people are still stuck on simple rules of pluralization.
 
2012-08-16 02:00:27 PM

Ker_Thwap: How the heck does "Boobies" turn into Boobies? Is Fark just screwing with me?

Now I'm really off, really, maybe.


I'm thinking fark is censoring the words Boobies here? If you look at other popular news forums, they are filled with commenters rushing out and declaring "Boobies", even when they're not the Boobies. Generally, forums filled with people rushing out to declare "Boobies" are dominated by idiots and not worth your time. So, Drew has made it so that anyone who says "Boobies" on fark is really saying: Boobies. I guess the fark filter is just overly sensitive and makes Boobies apprear as Boobies no matter where those words appear in the thread and/or message.

/boobies
 
2012-08-16 02:01:38 PM

meanmutton: Roughing The Snapper: The volunteer's what?

The volunteer is carrying.

Contractions, how the fark do they work? Oh, this will tell you! Contractions (Grammar) - English


No, in this case, the meaning of the sentence is "the carrying of the Chick-Fil-a bag and automatic weapon by the volunteer". Perfectly correct English.
 
2012-08-16 02:04:46 PM

BigNumber12: Elegy: Course, the Nazi's stood for a lot more than "anti-Jew" too.


See, vogonity: most people are still stuck on simple rules of pluralization.


For the record, my iPhone did that. Blame Apple; I know how to. Odds fly - er, lets try this again iPhone.

I know hoe to correctly pluralize and use possessives. I can even use "there, their, and they're" correctly! (and I usually do)

/still have a little trouble with who and whom though
 
2012-08-16 02:06:15 PM

Elegy: BigNumber12: Elegy: Course, the Nazi's stood for a lot more than "anti-Jew" too.


See, vogonity: most people are still stuck on simple rules of pluralization.

For the record, my iPhone did that. Blame Apple; I know how to. Odds fly - er, lets try this again iPhone.

I know hoe to correctly pluralize and use possessives. I can even use "there, their, and they're" correctly! (and I usually do)

/still have a little trouble with who and whom though


facepalm.jpg

/imma go work now, k?
//sometimes I suck at life
 
2012-08-16 02:08:46 PM

Biness: nutbags are nutbags. Was it politically motivated? yep. so right wing has nuts. left wing has nuts. the only real constant is that CNN sucks and must serve their high overlord, liberals


This is the response when a leftie does something bad. When a rightie does something bad suddenly it is THESE PEOPLE ARE ONLY ON ONE SIDE HERPA DURRRRR
 
2012-08-16 02:11:14 PM

Dimensio: Englebert Slaptyback: Dimensio

I am still attempting to locate the "quote" button.


Seriously?

It's that little square button next to the date. The button has quotation marks on it for some reason.


[members.iglou.com image 659x170]

Evidently I am of below average intelligence. Perhaps you could highlight the specific location of the "little square button next to the date".

 

media.tumblr.com
 
2012-08-16 02:11:33 PM

Arcanum: I'm pretty conservative. Most here would think I'm very conservative.

It's annoying as all hell when some nutjob is associated with a conservative movement.

It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say this nutjob is associated with the gay marriage movement.


So when he goes to volunteer there they turn him away for being crazy, right? No? They let him stay? Then he is part of the movement.

Has the LGTBLMNOP hate group denounced him yet?
 
2012-08-16 02:11:35 PM

Highroller48: Fish in a Barrel: Highroller48: I can't agree here. The term has become bastardized by misuse when it comes to handuns. That doesn't mean it's correct to call a semi weapon "automatic".

It hasn't been bastardized. It's just an archaic usage from back when auto-loaders were the new hotness. A 1911 would have been commonly called a .45 automatic, for instance. It hasn't been relevant for the better part of a century, but that doesn't make it wrong. Still, it's so rarely used (and generally only in a context that makes it a clear reference to loading) that it's safe to assume that's not what subby intended.

Fair enough. I don't like it, but a few minutes of Googling shows that even some manufacturers refer to semi-automatic handguns as automatics. I think that, with the invention of fully-automatic weapons, it's archaic as folks have said, but it's definitely still in use.

But damn it, it's gonna bug me....


The ACP in .45ACP literally means "Automatic Colt Pistol". Back in the army we used to refer to fully-automatic (multiple squirts for one trigger pull) or semi-automatic (one squirt per trigger pull. Obviously you understand the distinction, I'm just pointing out the difference for those that may not...); but both are automatic fire modes. Prior to the invention of fire selectors that enabled a single firearm to utilize either fire mode, the distinction was mostly irrelevant.
 
2012-08-16 02:12:46 PM

odinsposse: Maybe he was just doing that moral exchange thing people were talking about. You know, you eat at Chik-Fil-a and then donate money to a pro-gay group. He just decided to shoot up some anti-gay people instead.

Also, can anyone think of another instance of an angry crazy liberal shooting up anything? This may be the first time.


Uh, off the top of my head, Lee Harvey Oswald?
 
2012-08-16 02:14:49 PM

Highroller48: zedster: I doubt he had a legally obtained 9mm automatic handgun, not too many of those.

I'm always amazed at how few peopole konw the dirfference between "Semi-Automatic" and "Automatic".

It's very simple, folks...If more than one bullet comes out when you squeeze the trigger once (a la Robocop), only then is it an "automatic".


Well... If I made cookies with semi-sweet chocolate chips or sweet chocolate chips, could you tell the difference?

Maybe CNN just needs to get back in the kitchen.
 
2012-08-16 02:18:03 PM

Walker: I'm shocked that the Family Research Council, a "hate group" according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, is causing hate. Hate begets hate. Don't put it out there if you don't want it back.


Damn those jews for causing nazis. Damn them!
 
2012-08-16 02:19:55 PM

BuckTurgidson: Seems to be fixed now. One of the broken parts was the checkbox for Show HTML assistant tool and Reply buttons when posting comments (requires Javascript), which could help explain what was going on.


It's a shame when an enhancement goes bad like this. I definitely appreciate the improvement, but some people are just not happy. Ever.
 
2012-08-16 02:20:12 PM

meanmutton: Can we stop calling a pistol an "automatic weapon" now, please?


Can you stop calling handguns pistols?

A pistol is a handgun with a chamber that is integral with the barrel, such as a pepperbox revolver - as opposed to a standard (single-barrel) revolver, wherein the chamber is separate from the barrel as a revolving cylinder.

A handgun is a firearm designed to be handheld, in either one or both hands. This characteristic differentiates handguns as a general class of firearms from long guns such as rifles and shotguns.
 
2012-08-16 02:22:05 PM

Bullseyed: odinsposse: Maybe he was just doing that moral exchange thing people were talking about. You know, you eat at Chik-Fil-a and then donate money to a pro-gay group. He just decided to shoot up some anti-gay people instead.

Also, can anyone think of another instance of an angry crazy liberal shooting up anything? This may be the first time.

Uh, off the top of my head, Lee Harvey Oswald?


Right, but this is sort of the point. There was a good deal of violent liberal terrorism in the 70's (most of it outside the US, with notable exceptions, i.e. the Weather Underground). There's very little now - liberal terrorism is these days mostly limited to property crimes. Conservative terrorism, on the other hand, has been remarkably violent for the last couple decades (see list from earlier post).

I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion about why that would be, but pretending that's not the case just makes you look like you don't know how to read.
 
2012-08-16 02:24:32 PM

LabGrrl: IvanTheSilent:

Timothy McVeigh.
They'll say McVeigh wasn't really a conservative. (No, really, I've seen it.)

I've also seen them say Eric Rudolph didn't claim to be a Christian.

...Can I Guiliani the thread and point out that you don't get much more pro-god, anti-gay and right wing than the 9-11 hijackers?


proGod and antigay are not right wing spectrum attributes. Totalitarian, authoritarian type governments are leftist. Anarchy type things are extreme right wing.
 
2012-08-16 02:26:08 PM

Ker_Thwap: Again Jodeveki,

Let's not build a straw man and put words in my mouth. I never said I supported one side of the other. You are arguing with yourself.

Someone said they were offended by the hate speech of "burn in hell." I pointed out that both sides often have said nasty things, both left and right. I did not specify FRC or the LGBT. That was all you. I'm a moderate, I have no horse in this race. Stop trying to make it seem like I'm supporting the FRC, it's tacky.


Kind of funny that people who don't believe in hell would be offended by being sent there. You can't expect anyone on the left to assemble a coherent logical string though.
 
2012-08-16 02:37:37 PM

xander450: Bullseyed: odinsposse: Maybe he was just doing that moral exchange thing people were talking about. You know, you eat at Chik-Fil-a and then donate money to a pro-gay group. He just decided to shoot up some anti-gay people instead.

Also, can anyone think of another instance of an angry crazy liberal shooting up anything? This may be the first time.

Uh, off the top of my head, Lee Harvey Oswald?

Right, but this is sort of the point. There was a good deal of violent liberal terrorism in the 70's (most of it outside the US, with notable exceptions, i.e. the Weather Underground). There's very little now - liberal terrorism is these days mostly limited to property crimes. Conservative terrorism, on the other hand, has been remarkably violent for the last couple decades (see list from earlier post).

I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion about why that would be, but pretending that's not the case just makes you look like you don't know how to read.


Well yeah... the lefties were blowing up cars and shooting the president when they weren't getting elected to office. Communists and socialists don't have any reason to do that anymore since we've had centrists, leftists and communists for presidents for the last 20 years or so.

Unless Obama gets assassinated by someone wearing a KKK outfit, the left is still "ahead" on the violence scale for the current era.
 
2012-08-16 02:44:35 PM

Bullseyed: xander450: Bullseyed: odinsposse: Maybe he was just doing that moral exchange thing people were talking about. You know, you eat at Chik-Fil-a and then donate money to a pro-gay group. He just decided to shoot up some anti-gay people instead.

Also, can anyone think of another instance of an angry crazy liberal shooting up anything? This may be the first time.

Uh, off the top of my head, Lee Harvey Oswald?

Right, but this is sort of the point. There was a good deal of violent liberal terrorism in the 70's (most of it outside the US, with notable exceptions, i.e. the Weather Underground). There's very little now - liberal terrorism is these days mostly limited to property crimes. Conservative terrorism, on the other hand, has been remarkably violent for the last couple decades (see list from earlier post).

I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion about why that would be, but pretending that's not the case just makes you look like you don't know how to read.

Well yeah... the lefties were blowing up cars and shooting the president when they weren't getting elected to office. Communists and socialists don't have any reason to do that anymore since we've had centrists, leftists and communists for presidents for the last 20 years or so.

Unless Obama gets assassinated by someone wearing a KKK outfit, the left is still "ahead" on the violence scale for the current era.


You make me sad for my country.
 
2012-08-16 02:46:02 PM
I saw a comment on Red State that said something along the lines of, "If this had been a pro-lifer shooting people at Planned Parenthood, it'd be all over the liberal media."

The thing is, it may not be shootings, and it may not be Planned Parenthood, but abortion clinics are subject to domestic terror all the time.

The actual violent acts have gone down since the Feds started cracking down on domestic terror after 9/11, and things like phony anthrax scares are down because of that, but it still happens all the time.

And it's not news because it happens all the time.

I know some people will say, "Oh, FFS, people aren't getting shot and bombed all the time." True, but the threat is there, and the whole point of terrorism isn't to kill a lot of people, it's to incite terror.

In case anyone's wondering, the Family Research Council has publicly condemned such acts of terror. Good for them. People may disagree with their religious views, and I know I disagree with several of their non-religious stances (example: now that we're all being forced to buy health insurance, they're pushing for the government to tax insurance benefits) but at least they're not celebrating it. It's not like we're talking about Westboro Baptist here. When you keep him off of politics, James Dobson is a pretty reasonable human being. Politics seems to make monsters of us all.
 
2012-08-16 02:46:15 PM

Bullseyed:
proGod and antigay are not right wing spectrum attributes. Totalitarian, authoritarian type governments are leftist. Anarchy type things are extreme right wing.


Okay, sure, whatever. The Taliban and the government of Saudi Arabia are the leftest libs who ever libbed.

/Words, they have meanings, or not.
 
2012-08-16 02:46:26 PM

Bullseyed: xander450: Bullseyed: odinsposse: Maybe he was just doing that moral exchange thing people were talking about. You know, you eat at Chik-Fil-a and then donate money to a pro-gay group. He just decided to shoot up some anti-gay people instead.

Also, can anyone think of another instance of an angry crazy liberal shooting up anything? This may be the first time.

Uh, off the top of my head, Lee Harvey Oswald?

Right, but this is sort of the point. There was a good deal of violent liberal terrorism in the 70's (most of it outside the US, with notable exceptions, i.e. the Weather Underground). There's very little now - liberal terrorism is these days mostly limited to property crimes. Conservative terrorism, on the other hand, has been remarkably violent for the last couple decades (see list from earlier post).

I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion about why that would be, but pretending that's not the case just makes you look like you don't know how to read.

Well yeah... the lefties were blowing up cars and shooting the president when they weren't getting elected to office. Communists and socialists don't have any reason to do that anymore since we've had centrists, leftists and communists for presidents for the last 20 years or so.

Unless Obama gets assassinated by someone wearing a KKK outfit, the left is still "ahead" on the violence scale for the current era.


Dear god you're a moron. Kennedy was a Democrat, and GW Bush was neither centrist, leftist or communist.
 
2012-08-16 02:49:05 PM

LabGrrl: I was pointing out that it's a false equivalence. The thing that got FRC labeled a hate group was saying that their opponents were pedophiles.


pretty much this, and hopefully people realize this is an un-Christian position. As I said above, I think they're pretty reasonable when they stick to Christian principles. Keeping them on-task these days is damn-nigh impossible. I'm glad Dobson left, because once he got away from being a minister and into being a politician, he turned into a monster. He actually attacked Obama's position on the military, when Obama gave a speech about decreasing the size of the military, and based his argument on the Sermon on the Mount. I mean...uh...what the...
 
2012-08-16 02:49:38 PM

Elegy: BigNumber12: Elegy: Course, the Nazi's stood for a lot more than "anti-Jew" too.


See, vogonity: most people are still stuck on simple rules of pluralization.

For the record, my iPhone did that. Blame Apple; I know how to. Odds fly - er, lets try this again iPhone.

I know hoe to correctly pluralize and use possessives. I can even use "there, their, and they're" correctly! (and I usually do)

/still have a little trouble with who and whom though



I loled.

Yes, I have problems when posting from my phone as well.
 
2012-08-16 02:52:05 PM

Bullseyed: Walker: I'm shocked that the Family Research Council, a "hate group" according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, is causing hate. Hate begets hate. Don't put it out there if you don't want it back.

Damn those jews for causing nazis. Damn them!


It was the Jews' fault for being the 1%.
 
2012-08-16 02:59:03 PM

theMightyRegeya: LabGrrl: I was pointing out that it's a false equivalence. The thing that got FRC labeled a hate group was saying that their opponents were pedophiles.

pretty much this, and hopefully people realize this is an un-Christian position. As I said above, I think they're pretty reasonable when they stick to Christian principles. Keeping them on-task these days is damn-nigh impossible. I'm glad Dobson left, because once he got away from being a minister and into being a politician, he turned into a monster. He actually attacked Obama's position on the military, when Obama gave a speech about decreasing the size of the military, and based his argument on the Sermon on the Mount. I mean...uh...what the...


I actually had someone ask me what anti-gay families groups were not hate groups and I told them honestly I did not know, because they didn't cross my mind or my social sphere if they weren't inciting violence and lying about people, no matter how whackadoo their beliefs. I was told the fact that I could not name one was because I thought they all were. (my initial thought was, um, any non-'open and affirming' church?)
It sort of makes me want to give up on humanity.

I don't see any difference between a hate group that says blow up the gays and a hate group that says blow up the reptilian illuminati...and I'm relieved to see that most of the young people today don't see a difference in level of insanity between those two statements, which makes me not want to give up on humanity.

/Deep thoughts.
 
2012-08-16 03:08:56 PM

xander450: Dear god you're a moron. Kennedy was a Democrat, and GW Bush was neither centrist, leftist or communist.


Kennedy being a Democrat has nothing to do with the topic. He was killed by a communist. The topic was famous leftists who shot someone over politics.

Both Bushes were centrists. Just because you don't like that fact doesn't make it untrue. Kennedy was a centrist, and Clinton was a little left of center.
 
2012-08-16 03:09:36 PM
Is it still way to early?
 
2012-08-16 03:10:41 PM

theMightyRegeya: Bullseyed: Walker: I'm shocked that the Family Research Council, a "hate group" according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, is causing hate. Hate begets hate. Don't put it out there if you don't want it back.

Damn those jews for causing nazis. Damn them!

It was the Jews' fault for being the 1%.


Na, that the Christians fault. Christians were not allowed to charge interest when lending money, so the Jews had to run the banks. Since the Jews ran the banks, People like Hitler and Obama hate them.
 
2012-08-16 03:16:31 PM
Related...I swear this has a point.

I was digging through a box of old books a few years back and found a early 1980s era reading book from when I was a kid...or maybe my sister. There was a chapter assignment in the book where the story was about a bully and the kids in the class created an elaborate scheme to leave the bully tied up if he kept beating up kids. The protagonists in the story were a couple of smart kids who managed to avoid the bully all the time, who led the little kid rebellion and got the bully his comeuppance. The story ends with a newspaper picture of the bully tied up to the flagpole and the first question is along the lines of "write a proper headline for this picture."
My kid went to school post-columbine, and I know the protagonists in the story would, today, be arrested and placed in handcuffs (my son's old district has a habit of handcuffing 4th graders and being on fark for it) for 'terroristic threats' (they warn the bully tostop stealing lunch money or bad things will happen) but I could only assume the right wing rage-o-sphere would create a headline that read "Upstanding entrepreneurial student terrorized in anti-American hate crime because of his Christian views." 
/I know, cool story mom.
 
2012-08-16 03:54:57 PM
That would make it terrorism. Left wingers and Muslims can't be terrorists. Just like the black panthers can't commit hate crimes.
 
2012-08-16 03:57:16 PM

LabGrrl: I don't see any difference between a hate group that says blow up the gays and a hate group that says blow up the reptilian illuminati..


Really? Huh.
 
2012-08-16 04:02:51 PM

Mikey1969: dukwbutter: almost all 9mm's are "automatics". This means "semi-automatic"

LOL, no circular logic there, 'Automatic means semi-automatic?', you sure you want to stand on that statement?

dukwbutter: One trigger pull = 1 round fired = "automatic". The more you know, libtards.

Actually, it is "One trigger pull = 1 round fired = semi-automatic>"

The more you know, moron.

Here's what happens; Magazine fed(Auto-loader pistols) are 'usually' called automatics to set them apart from revolvers, but it IS NOT SET IN STONE, and your "logic" has to be some of the most misinformed bullshiat I've ever seen. You sound about as familiar with guns as Sarah Palin. You can't even use the '1 trigger pull = 1 shot thing in guns, because a double action revolver does not require you to cock the gun in any way to fire, so you can pull the trigger 6 (Or 5, 7, 8 or 9, depending on the revolver), times and it will fire each time without you having to do anything but pull the trigger.

But, hey, go ahead and throw out the term "libtards", I usually get accused of being a Liberal because I can't stand the current batch of republicans. Funny how this supposed "Lib" understand the very basic ideas about guns more than you do.


Cocksucker, you're not telling me anything. I've fired more rounds through Class III firearms than you could ever dream of. I own more guns than you. People routinely refer to semi-autimatic weapons as automatics. You, sir, are an idiot and a jackass.
 
2012-08-16 04:06:01 PM

Bullseyed: xander450: Dear god you're a moron. Kennedy was a Democrat, and GW Bush was neither centrist, leftist or communist.

Kennedy being a Democrat has nothing to do with the topic. He was killed by a communist. The topic was famous leftists who shot someone over politics.

Both Bushes were centrists. Just because you don't like that fact doesn't make it untrue. Kennedy was a centrist, and Clinton was a little left of center.


In fact, it does. The part of our exchange you left out of the quote was the bit where you said, "Well yeah... the lefties were blowing up cars and shooting the president when they weren't getting elected to office. Communists and socialists don't have any reason to do that anymore since we've had centrists, leftists and communists for presidents for the last 20 years or so."

Lefties, as it were, were getting elected to office when a communist (literally a communist, not someone with left-leaning views, but someone who actually defected to Russia) shot a Democratic president. Yes, it was political, but not in the left vs. right sense of the term, but rather in the free-world-vs-communism sense.

...and the 1st Bush was a centrist; the 2nd was not. It would be disingenuous to call Clinton "center-left" and not call Bush at the least "center-right".

Which is a roundabout way of saying you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I'm surely not the first person to point this out, and it's not my favorite thing to do. But seriously, there's no point in having an opinion that is so thoroughly malformed that it lacks even the most basic underpinnings of historical fact - especially when the tools necessary to make an informed opinion are directly in front of you.

Oops, just showed my liberal arrogance. Can't win here.
 
2012-08-16 04:08:21 PM

Ranger Joe: How could this have even happened? I mean, aren't guns illegal in DC?


Not any more. City lost this on 2nd Amendment ruling.
 
2012-08-16 04:10:17 PM

Spade: dukwbutter: Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Fully automatic weapons are very easy to get, proving you have no idea what you're talking about. All you need is a class III firearms permit. People do, in fact, routinely refer to semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns as "automatics", and, if you knew anything about guns (aside from what you read on the intertubes), then you'd know this.

No, for a Class 3 you need a FFL first and then you can become a SOT.

Unless you're mistakenly referring to a tax stamp as a "class III firearms permit". Which it isn't.


No. You dont need an FFL. But thanks for playing.
 
2012-08-16 04:11:34 PM

The Envoy: dukwbutter: CAADbury: dukwbutter: Shove it up your ass nimrod. You dont know shiat about guns. I grew up with them. Semi-automatic weapons are commonly referred to as "automatics". This is true of shotguns, pistols, and rifles. You wouldnt know because youre a liberal douche and have never fired a gun.

Yes. The truth hurts Caadbury. Post LOL WUT when you dont understand something. Then post some bait jpg when youre proven to be an ignorant liberal douche. Well played, obama fan!

Medication. Take it.


fark u treehugger
 
2012-08-16 04:16:47 PM

dukwbutter: Mikey1969: dukwbutter: almost all 9mm's are "automatics". This means "semi-automatic"

LOL, no circular logic there, 'Automatic means semi-automatic?', you sure you want to stand on that statement?

dukwbutter: One trigger pull = 1 round fired = "automatic". The more you know, libtards.

Actually, it is "One trigger pull = 1 round fired = semi-automatic>"

The more you know, moron.

Here's what happens; Magazine fed(Auto-loader pistols) are 'usually' called automatics to set them apart from revolvers, but it IS NOT SET IN STONE, and your "logic" has to be some of the most misinformed bullshiat I've ever seen. You sound about as familiar with guns as Sarah Palin. You can't even use the '1 trigger pull = 1 shot thing in guns, because a double action revolver does not require you to cock the gun in any way to fire, so you can pull the trigger 6 (Or 5, 7, 8 or 9, depending on the revolver), times and it will fire each time without you having to do anything but pull the trigger.

But, hey, go ahead and throw out the term "libtards", I usually get accused of being a Liberal because I can't stand the current batch of republicans. Funny how this supposed "Lib" understand the very basic ideas about guns more than you do.

Cocksucker, you're not telling me anything. I've fired more rounds through Class III firearms than you could ever dream of. I own more guns than you. People routinely refer to semi-autimatic weapons as automatics. You, sir, are an idiot and a jackass.


WTF? ITG alert. You need to be at the range in 26 minutes.

Seriously, you just made your penis look TINY. You're getting het up over an argument about gun nomenclature.

Tone it down, tough guy, this is Fark. Calling people dirty names is generally frowned upon.

/That thing must be tee-tiny. Glad I'm not your wife.
 
2012-08-16 04:37:16 PM
ct.fra.bz
 
2012-08-16 05:02:47 PM
He has a good defense, he is not right in the head the homosexula affliction warped his little brain.

We need to study this ilness find the cause then find the cure.

// we all need to pray for this mans soul.
 
2012-08-16 05:17:26 PM

Rostin: LasersHurt: Yes, the LGBT community is so well known for their angry, hateful rhetoric inciting violence. duh.

I realize you meant this as a joke, but in all seriousness, they have consistently dehumanized their ideological opponents by calling them "anti-gay," "bigots," "homophobes," "hateful," and the like for quite a long time. The Family Research Council has even been officially designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. And then this Chik-fil-a thing happens. Dan Cathy, a known conservative Christian who directs a small fraction of his otherwise laudable charitable giving toward "anti-gay" causes, responds to a direct question from a journalist who works for a Christian publication by saying that he supports "traditional" marriage and the "biblical" understanding of family, and for two or three weeks solid, everyone loses their shiat and acts like he'shiatler reincarnated. Frankly, it's amazing that it took this long for something like this to happen.



Stop dehumanizing me by calling me a racist.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-08-16 05:20:47 PM

OnlyM3: Let me help you with that...
'Tastes Like Hate': Torrance Chick-Fil-A Vandalized Ahead Of 'Same Sex Kiss Day'

Chick-Fil-A Vandalized... The vandalism comes just one day after gay rights activists...

Frederick Chick-fil-A restaurant vandalized with...

Bomb threat closes W. Va. Chick-fil-A on 'appreciation day'


Adam Smith, Chick-Fil-A Drive-Through Bully, Hassles Fast Food Employee

Anyone who eats at Chick-fil-A "deserves to get the cancer


.... or you could peruse the half dozen or so fark threads where fellow farkers call for and support violence.

Warlordtrooper : Shooter deserves the hero tag. It's about time the left responds

insertsnarkyusername : And I may be a horrible person but nothing that happens to that organization is less than what they deserve.
^Commenting on the shooter.

There are more, but I'm not wading through that muck again.



You mean people get angry when you restrict their basic human rights, call them evil, say God hates you, call you a mistake, you're going to hell, etc?

Shocked, SHOCKED when you drive a person to react to that hate filled rhetoric
 
2012-08-16 05:26:49 PM

Bullseyed: So when he goes to volunteer there they turn him away for being crazy, right? No? They let him stay? Then he is part of the movement.

Has the LGTBLMNOP hate group denounced him yet?



Just like the idiots who went to some OWS rallies before being kicked out, if this guy started talking about shooting up a hate groups offices, they would call the cops.

At a conservative rally if someone said to commit violence against liberals, they'd get a standing ovation.

"We came unarmed, this time."
 
2012-08-16 05:27:02 PM
Subby put "automatic weapon" in tagline AND YOU ALL FELL FOR THE TROLL
 
2012-08-16 05:27:33 PM

Bullseyed: odinsposse: Maybe he was just doing that moral exchange thing people were talking about. You know, you eat at Chik-Fil-a and then donate money to a pro-gay group. He just decided to shoot up some anti-gay people instead.

Also, can anyone think of another instance of an angry crazy liberal shooting up anything? This may be the first time.

Uh, off the top of my head, Lee Harvey Oswald?



Oswald was a liberal? How so?
 
2012-08-16 05:28:46 PM

Bullseyed: Totalitarian, authoritarian type governments are leftist. Anarchy type things are extreme right wing.



Now THAT is funny

A police state is "leftist" based on what definition? Liberalism believes in freedom, human rights, free and fair elections. The right believes in strict laws and morality forced on the population
 
2012-08-16 05:38:49 PM

puddleonfire: Subby put "automatic weapon" in tagline AND YOU ALL FELL FOR THE TROLL


where is my quote button? haz anyone seen it?? 

ak-47s are semi auto weapons
 
2012-08-16 05:56:32 PM
According to Reuters he said, "I don't like your politics," before shooting the guard. That seems a tad on the nose.
 
2012-08-16 05:57:37 PM

intelligent comment below: Rostin: LasersHurt: Yes, the LGBT community is so well known for their angry, hateful rhetoric inciting violence. duh.

I realize you meant this as a joke, but in all seriousness, they have consistently dehumanized their ideological opponents by calling them "anti-gay," "bigots," "homophobes," "hateful," and the like for quite a long time. The Family Research Council has even been officially designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. And then this Chik-fil-a thing happens. Dan Cathy, a known conservative Christian who directs a small fraction of his otherwise laudable charitable giving toward "anti-gay" causes, responds to a direct question from a journalist who works for a Christian publication by saying that he supports "traditional" marriage and the "biblical" understanding of family, and for two or three weeks solid, everyone loses their shiat and acts like he'shiatler reincarnated. Frankly, it's amazing that it took this long for something like this to happen.


Stop dehumanizing me by calling me a racist.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x201]


Swing and a miss. If someone is actually a racist, i.e. she believes in the superiority of particular race(s) of people, then I don't really see the problem with calling her that. There have been and still are plenty of openly racist people. What I object to is describing people like Dan Cathy as homophobic, bigoted, hateful, etc, without good reason to think that they actually are. Or, to put it another way, I object to taking opposition to gay marriage as infallible evidence of some kind of anti-homosexual prejudice.
 
2012-08-16 05:57:55 PM

Fish in a Barrel: According to Reuters he said, "I don't like your politics," before shooting the guard. That seems a tad on the nose.



But libtards hate guns and want to take them away, and they're too scared to every use them. I'm so confused, is the info the conservatives tell me on Fark just not true?
 
2012-08-16 06:03:21 PM

fireclown: LabGrrl: I don't see any difference between a hate group that says blow up the gays and a hate group that says blow up the reptilian illuminati..

Really? Huh.


They both are arbitrarily using 'evidence' they perceive (what 'gays' look like, for example) to threaten to kill other human beings.
The threatening to kill other human beings is what makes them crazy, not the whacked justification they use to determine who to threaten to kill.
 
2012-08-16 06:07:36 PM
www.mittromney.com

I blame Obama and his campaign of division and anger and hate. He should be more responsible. He needs to tone down the rhetoric before more liberals start shooting everything that moves.
 
2012-08-16 06:08:18 PM
wait so if you have to pull the trigger more than once does that make it full auto or just regular semi-auto?

cause if you have to pull the hammer back each time im pretty sure that means his blog sucks

what is the "..." button next to the little mountains? does that mean etc..? or does that automatically produce an IDW post...?

i'm confused
 
2012-08-16 06:14:58 PM

intelligent comment below: Stop dehumanizing me by calling me a racist.


and anyone who disagrees with icb is a racist, you hateful bigots

jodaveki: Ker_Thwap: jodaveki


Smartest
Funniest

2012-08-16 12:07:57 PM

Hmh. Hateful speech from the LGBT community.

From the L. G. B. T. Community.

Hateful. As in "I hate you and want you to burn in hell."

I see.

I'm a moderate, so I tend to piss off twice as many people. That said, I see plenty of hateful left wing speech also. The most recent example I can think of was "I hope every Chik Fil A franchise owner and his family starves." I don't think people even stop to consider how things they say can be hateful when they're all caught up in being moral.

LGBT: "I'd like marry my partner whom I love and to whom I commit myself."
FRC: "You degrade marriage and disparage commitment."

LGBT: "I want to adopt children and raise them to be good people who make the world a better place."
FRC: "You want to pervert children and convert them to homosexuality, and you will damage them psychologically so that they become maladjusted sociopaths."

LGBT: "I want to be free of discrimination in the workplace based on my sexuality."
FRC: "Your sexuality is an affront to Christian employers and they shouldn't have tolerate your presence."

LGBT: "I want to be able to care for and visit in the hospital my dying partner, and have th power to sort out their affairs since I've lived with them for so many years."
FRC: "Yours is a kind that is so perverted it cannot be termed 'love,' and you are unfit to give final comfort in their last hours."

LGBT: "I hope you and your ilk starve."
FRC: "You will burn in hell for eternity."

Yah. Both sides. Hateful.


oh boy i can have some fun with this one, will someone else type it up for me?

/tired
 
2012-08-16 06:17:05 PM

Rostin: Swing and a miss. If someone is actually a racist, i.e. she believes in the superiority of particular race(s) of people, then I don't really see the problem with calling her that. There have been and still are plenty of openly racist people. What I object to is describing people like Dan Cathy as homophobic, bigoted, hateful, etc, without good reason to think that they actually are. Or, to put it another way, I object to taking opposition to gay marriage as infallible evidence of some kind of anti-homosexual prejudice.



Now that is funny. Not just the bold part, all of it.
 
2012-08-16 06:48:46 PM

intelligent comment below: Rostin: Swing and a miss. If someone is actually a racist, i.e. she believes in the superiority of particular race(s) of people, then I don't really see the problem with calling her that. There have been and still are plenty of openly racist people. What I object to is describing people like Dan Cathy as homophobic, bigoted, hateful, etc, without good reason to think that they actually are. Or, to put it another way, I object to taking opposition to gay marriage as infallible evidence of some kind of anti-homosexual prejudice.


Now that is funny. Not just the bold part, all of it.


This story was posted hours and hours ago. There are currently 344 comments. As you can probably imagine, I've already received plenty of "clever" comments like yours telling me, without getting into specifics, how wrong or silly I am. I've also written several other comments to further clarify what I think. Once you've read and thought about them, if you have something to say that's worth my time and attention, feel free to post it.
 
2012-08-16 07:05:51 PM

jbuist: bulldg4life: There's no politics in play when it is a crazy person.

Bingo. If you decide you really don't like Democrats or Republicans because your Cheerios told you bad things about one of the groups it's not important which group you sided with.


Well, from an academic standpoint it's certainly interesting. The rates of difference in which side the crazy shooters are picking is astronomical, and I have to wonder if there's a common thread between all of them...

But mostly just because ALL THE DATA. Otherwise, I agree.
 
2012-08-16 07:13:52 PM
Shooting up a room full of people I don't like = act of a deranged mind.
Shooting up a room full of people I do like = hate crime.
 
2012-08-16 07:46:24 PM

Rostin: intelligent comment below: Rostin: Swing and a miss. If someone is actually a racist, i.e. she believes in the superiority of particular race(s) of people, then I don't really see the problem with calling her that. There have been and still are plenty of openly racist people. What I object to is describing people like Dan Cathy as homophobic, bigoted, hateful, etc, without good reason to think that they actually are. Or, to put it another way, I object to taking opposition to gay marriage as infallible evidence of some kind of anti-homosexual prejudice.


Now that is funny. Not just the bold part, all of it.

This story was posted hours and hours ago. There are currently 344 comments. As you can probably imagine, I've already received plenty of "clever" comments like yours telling me, without getting into specifics, how wrong or silly I am. I've also written several other comments to further clarify what I think. Once you've read and thought about them, if you have something to say that's worth my time and attention, feel free to post it.



What is there to discuss? You think a guy donating money to known hate groups, denying humans basic human rights because your religious book says they are eeevviiiilll, is "not" being homophobic, bigoted, hateful, etc. You also think denying them a basic right such as marriage afforded to everyone else isn't being prejudiced because, well because dammit you say so

So good luck with that
 
2012-08-16 08:34:57 PM
I got here by accident, can someone please help me find the exit? There is something in the air here and I'm afraid it has rendered me quite stupid....
 
2012-08-16 08:45:47 PM

BobDeluxe: I got here by accident, can someone please help me find the exit? There is something in the air here and I'm afraid it has rendered me quite stupid....



No, you've always been like that. You've shown your bigotry many a times
 
2012-08-16 08:46:12 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: vogonity: Really? Well I guess the apostrophe in "it's" is correct. Please explain how the apostrophe in "volunteer's" is used correctly.

We've decided that it's supposed to be a possessive, but the rest of the headline is still painfully wrong, so mea culpa.


Preemptively calling everyone who disagrees with you a moron makes you a dick.
 
2012-08-16 09:16:08 PM

intelligent comment below: What is there to discuss? You think a guy donating money to known hate groups, denying humans basic human rights because your religious book says they are eeevviiiilll, is "not" being homophobic, bigoted, hateful, etc. You also think denying them a basic right such as marriage afforded to everyone else isn't being prejudiced because, well because dammit you say so

So good luck with that


Boy, you've got me there. Never heard that one before. Oh, wait, I have. Quoting from an earlier comment of mine,

These words are not just "accurate labels" for people. They are specifically calculated to create an emotional response and to short circuit empathy. It's very common to hear people say things like, "We don't need to listen to them; they're bigots, so it doesn't matter."

Congratulations on being both utterly predictable and for being so very good at following the other sheep.
 
2012-08-16 09:17:30 PM

Rostin: Kuroshin: Rostin: Kuroshin: That right there? That's a prime example of dissembling. Kudos on your intellectual dishonesty.

Prove it.

Prove your dissembling?

Yes, that.

Stop trying to be clever and tell me specifically what you think I said that was dissembling and intellectually dishonest, and why you think so. I'm not interested in trying to guess what you meant based on the poorly constructed rhetorical questions and vague accusations you make in your response.


Already did. Scroll wayyyyyyyyyy up.

Hell, just read some of the other responses in this thread. I don't need to go banging a drum repeating the same things everybody else is saying, in this thread and elsewhere.

Dissembling is all you've done this thread. Yes, those people do hate gays - in the manner that they hate murderers and rapists. They see "gayness" as a choice, not a nature. Gey people, to them, could be decent people that they could love and respect, if they hadn't decided to become gay and live a life that isn't just "against God" (their words, not mine), but so very icky as well.

How do I know this? Because much of my family *are* those people. Not only that, but I'm *surrounded* by those people daily.

The whole "traditional marriage" bit is a bullshiat Red Herring. They know it, we know it, and you know it. There is no such thing as "traditional marriage" in any context. It's a made-up catch phrase they can use to not sound like the bigots they are in public. Again, how do I know this? Because it's the "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" that goes around the entire fundamentalist community that I get exposed to constantly by my relatives.

You're dissembling. I'm not the only one who's called you out on it.
 
2012-08-16 09:21:44 PM

Rostin: intelligent comment below: What is there to discuss? You think a guy donating money to known hate groups, denying humans basic human rights because your religious book says they are eeevviiiilll, is "not" being homophobic, bigoted, hateful, etc. You also think denying them a basic right such as marriage afforded to everyone else isn't being prejudiced because, well because dammit you say so

So good luck with that

Boy, you've got me there. Never heard that one before. Oh, wait, I have. Quoting from an earlier comment of mine,

These words are not just "accurate labels" for people. They are specifically calculated to create an emotional response and to short circuit empathy. It's very common to hear people say things like, "We don't need to listen to them; they're bigots, so it doesn't matter."

Congratulations on being both utterly predictable and for being so very good at following the other sheep.


Again with the dissembling. Calling a bigot a bigot is no different than calling me "white" or "a man." Or, as can be tied into the thread, it is the same as calling some of my friends "homosexual." It's not a perjorative, it's a literal definition.

You're really trying hard to deflect here. If your posts weren't so well-crafted, I would have written you off as just a basic troll a long time ago. Instead I am thinking you're a PR front.
 
2012-08-16 09:39:53 PM

Kuroshin: Rostin: Kuroshin: Rostin: Kuroshin: That right there? That's a prime example of dissembling. Kudos on your intellectual dishonesty.

Prove it.

Prove your dissembling?

Yes, that.

Stop trying to be clever and tell me specifically what you think I said that was dissembling and intellectually dishonest, and why you think so. I'm not interested in trying to guess what you meant based on the poorly constructed rhetorical questions and vague accusations you make in your response.

Already did. Scroll wayyyyyyyyyy up.

Hell, just read some of the other responses in this thread. I don't need to go banging a drum repeating the same things everybody else is saying, in this thread and elsewhere.

Dissembling is all you've done this thread. Yes, those people do hate gays - in the manner that they hate murderers and rapists. They see "gayness" as a choice, not a nature. Gey people, to them, could be decent people that they could love and respect, if they hadn't decided to become gay and live a life that isn't just "against God" (their words, not mine), but so very icky as well.

How do I know this? Because much of my family *are* those people. Not only that, but I'm *surrounded* by those people daily.

The whole "traditional marriage" bit is a bullshiat Red Herring. They know it, we know it, and you know it. There is no such thing as "traditional marriage" in any context. It's a made-up catch phrase they can use to not sound like the bigots they are in public. Again, how do I know this? Because it's the "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" that goes around the entire fundamentalist community that I get exposed to constantly by my relatives.

You're dissembling. I'm not the only one who's called you out on it.


So.. because you think some of your family members are dishonest and/or misinformed about why people are gay and why gay marriage ought to be opposed, I and everyone else must be too? Is that your argument?

If "the whole traditional marriage thing" really is a "bullshiat red herring", how do you explain that a major component of the WinShape Foundation's donations are for marriage counseling, and that a supposedly anti-gay group like Focus on the Family has an entire section on their website that is devoted to marriage and yet has not a single mention of gay marriage? Is that all just a smokescreen so they can plausibly deny existing solely to subvert gay rights?

By the way, here's a partial transcript of an interview that James Dobson, founder of both Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, did with Larry King, in which he emphatically denies that being gay is a choice. Maybe you could forward it to your relatives.
 
2012-08-16 09:57:28 PM

Rostin: Boy, you've got me there. Never heard that one before. Oh, wait, I have. Quoting from an earlier comment of mine,

These words are not just "accurate labels" for people. They are specifically calculated to create an emotional response and to short circuit empathy. It's very common to hear people say things like, "We don't need to listen to them; they're bigots, so it doesn't matter."

Congratulations on being both utterly predictable and for being so very good at following the other sheep.



So if I say traditional marriage is between a WHITE man and a WHITE woman, if you dare call me a racist I can cry you're the bigot and labeling me used to try and discredit what I say?

Oh you poor oppressed bigots funding hate groups. I feel so sorry for you
 
2012-08-16 09:58:43 PM

Rostin: So.. because you think some of your family members are dishonest and/or misinformed about why people are gay and why gay marriage ought to be opposed, I and everyone else must be too? Is that your argument?

If "the whole traditional marriage thing" really is a "bullshiat red herring", how do you explain that a major component of the WinShape Foundation's donations are for marriage counseling, and that a supposedly anti-gay group like Focus on the Family has an entire section on their website that is devoted to marriage and yet has not a single mention of gay marriage? Is that all just a smokescreen so they can plausibly deny existing solely to subvert gay rights?

By the way, here's a partial transcript of an interview that James Dobson, founder of both Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, did with Larry King, in which he emphatically denies that being gay is a choice. Maybe you could forward it to your relatives.



You're right. You people are the most oppressed group in the nation. You can't even go around in public and tell everyone you believe in traditional marriage without fear of being lynched.
 
2012-08-16 10:05:50 PM

Kuroshin: Rostin: intelligent comment below: What is there to discuss? You think a guy donating money to known hate groups, denying humans basic human rights because your religious book says they are eeevviiiilll, is "not" being homophobic, bigoted, hateful, etc. You also think denying them a basic right such as marriage afforded to everyone else isn't being prejudiced because, well because dammit you say so

So good luck with that

Boy, you've got me there. Never heard that one before. Oh, wait, I have. Quoting from an earlier comment of mine,

These words are not just "accurate labels" for people. They are specifically calculated to create an emotional response and to short circuit empathy. It's very common to hear people say things like, "We don't need to listen to them; they're bigots, so it doesn't matter."

Congratulations on being both utterly predictable and for being so very good at following the other sheep.

Again with the dissembling. Calling a bigot a bigot is no different than calling me "white" or "a man." Or, as can be tied into the thread, it is the same as calling some of my friends "homosexual." It's not a perjorative, it's a literal definition.

You're really trying hard to deflect here. If your posts weren't so well-crafted, I would have written you off as just a basic troll a long time ago. Instead I am thinking you're a PR front.


I think we all have a pretty good idea about what makes a person a man or white. There are boundary cases that we could debate and cultural issues to account for, but on the whole, when we call a person "white" or "a man," I think we can agree that we are making basically factual statements.

Bigotry, on the other hand, is a value judgment, not a simple factual one. Please feel free to supply an alternative definition, but to me, a bigot is someone who is wrongfully intolerant (or intolerant in a wrongful way or to an excessive degree, maybe) of another person, point of view, action, putative identity characteristic, etc. You and I will agree that a person is or isn't a bigot only after we have already agreed about what should and shouldn't be tolerated, or about the appropriate ways of expressing disagreement. These things can be highly disputable, perhaps even subjective. Hence, they are in many cases nothing like race or biological sex (again, caveats apply).
 
2012-08-16 10:48:28 PM

intelligent comment below: Rostin: Boy, you've got me there. Never heard that one before. Oh, wait, I have. Quoting from an earlier comment of mine,

These words are not just "accurate labels" for people. They are specifically calculated to create an emotional response and to short circuit empathy. It's very common to hear people say things like, "We don't need to listen to them; they're bigots, so it doesn't matter."

Congratulations on being both utterly predictable and for being so very good at following the other sheep.


So if I say traditional marriage is between a WHITE man and a WHITE woman, if you dare call me a racist I can cry you're the bigot and labeling me used to try and discredit what I say?

Oh you poor oppressed bigots funding hate groups. I feel so sorry for you


I don't know what you want me to say, here. I already told you that I think it's reasonable to call racists racist, and I've explained why. Does this hypothetical you believe that only white people should or can get married because members of other races are inferior?

I will add that I've tried to consistently write "traditional" in quotes in this thread, because even though I don't think it's a very helpful way to refer to or defend the concept of marriage that Dan Cathy was (I assume) talking about, everyone still knows more or less what it means at this point in time.
 
2012-08-17 12:45:32 AM

Rostin: I don't know what you want me to say, here. I already told you that I think it's reasonable to call racists racist, and I've explained why. Does this hypothetical you believe that only white people should or can get married because members of other races are inferior?

I will add that I've tried to consistently write "traditional" in quotes in this thread, because even though I don't think it's a very helpful way to refer to or defend the concept of marriage that Dan Cathy was (I assume) talking about, everyone still knows more or less what it means at this point in time.



So you're just being willfully obtuse and dancing around the fact Cathy is a bigot and his company supports hate groups and it's justified to call people like that out. The end.
 
2012-08-17 07:56:38 AM

intelligent comment below: Rostin: I don't know what you want me to say, here. I already told you that I think it's reasonable to call racists racist, and I've explained why. Does this hypothetical you believe that only white people should or can get married because members of other races are inferior?

I will add that I've tried to consistently write "traditional" in quotes in this thread, because even though I don't think it's a very helpful way to refer to or defend the concept of marriage that Dan Cathy was (I assume) talking about, everyone still knows more or less what it means at this point in time.


So you're just being willfully obtuse and dancing around the fact Cathy is a bigot and his company supports hate groups and it's justified to call people like that out. The end.


Yes, that's it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the things I've said in the dozen or so other comments I've made in this thread. I'm just being obtuse.
 
2012-08-17 08:05:35 AM

Rostin: Yes, that's it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the things I've said in the dozen or so other comments I've made in this thread. I'm just being obtuse.


Hahaha! You are talking to intelligent comment below. You poor bastard.....
 
2012-08-17 08:15:21 AM

Mouser: Shooting up a room full of people I don't like = act of a deranged mind.
Shooting up a room full of people I do like = hate crime.


it's ok when we do it!
 
2012-08-17 08:32:03 AM

jodaveki: Pedophiles, Incestuals, Bestials, Polygamist: "I'd like marry my partner whom I love and to whom I commit myself."
LGBT: "You degrade marriage and disparage commitment."

Pedophiles, Incestuals, Bestials, Polygamist: "I want to adopt children and raise them to be good people who make the world a better place."
LGBT: "You want to pervert children and convert them to your lifestyle choice, and you will damage them psychologically so that they become maladjusted sociopaths."

Pedophiles, Incestuals, Bestials, Polygamist: "I want to be free of discrimination in the workplace based on my sexuality."
LGBT: "Your sexuality is an affront to fabulous employers and they shouldn't have tolerate your presence."

Pedophiles, Incestuals, Bestials, Polygamist: "I want to be able to care for and visit in the hospital my dying partner(s), and have the power to sort out their affairs since I've lived with them for so many years."
LGBT: "Yours is a kind that is so perverted it cannot be termed 'love,' and you are unfit to give final comfort in their last hours."

Pedophiles, Incestuals, Bestials, Polygamists: "I hope you and your ilk starve."
LGBT: "You will burn in hell for eternity."

Yah. Both sides. Hateful


i think that just about wraps up this thread, anyone got something else to add?

/hit the lights when you leave
 
2012-08-17 08:37:25 AM

I drunk what: i think that just about wraps up this thread


actually to be exact that stuff plus:

puddleonfire: AND YOU ALL FELL FOR THE TROLL THREAD


THIS^

i56.tinypic.com
 
2012-08-17 11:56:34 AM

The Muthaship: Rostin: Yes, that's it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the things I've said in the dozen or so other comments I've made in this thread. I'm just being obtuse.

Hahaha! You are talking to intelligent comment below. You poor bastard.....



Sticking up for a bigoted troll? Your mom must be proud
 
2012-08-17 12:30:53 PM
LGBT volunteer's
Left.
carrying Chick-Fil-a bag
Right.
and automatic weapon
Right.
into conservative group's headquarters
Left.


I don't get it.
 
2012-08-18 01:25:27 AM
Has anyone mentioned your blog sucks?

How 'bout; "you are bad and you should feel bad"?
 
Displayed 368 of 368 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report