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.

(Examiner)   Alex Jones claims Obama has met the rules of impeachment under Article II, Section IV of the Constitution; fortunately for everyone else, Jones seems to have skipped Article I, Section III   (examiner.com) divider line 189
    More: Dumbass, President Obama, articles of impeachment, Constitution of the United States, Andrew Johnson, hair removal, impeachment, veto override  
•       •       •

4777 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jan 2013 at 9:08 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-16 10:00:34 AM

Fail in Human Form: The NRA didn't say a word after the shooting, until the media went full retard and they had to respond. The NRA isn't the group that writes its legislation, gleefully, in the blood of the dead before the bodies are even cold.


Yes, blame THE MEDIA for reporting on 26 dead schoolkids. Non-issue; didn't deserve all that coverage. It was just manufactured outrage; no normal person really cared about the dead kids or wanted gun control change because of it. All the media's fault.

Keep telling yourself these little lies if they make you feel better.
 
2013-01-16 10:01:18 AM

NateGrey: JAMES YEAGER (1/9/2013): fark that. I'm telling you that if that happens, it's going to spark a Civil War, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. ... I'm not farking putting up with this, I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator, I'm not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people!

Link

Gun owners are so sane and rational.


BraveNewCheneyWorld: Gun control drum-beater - "Find a crazy person on their side, then try to associate him with everyone who disagrees with us, we need to poison that well.

 
2013-01-16 10:01:50 AM

NateGrey: JAMES YEAGER (1/9/2013): fark that. I'm telling you that if that happens, it's going to spark a Civil War, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. ... I'm not farking putting up with this, I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator, I'm not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people!

Link

Gun owners are so sane and rational.


Some are. Some are assholes.
 
2013-01-16 10:02:03 AM
FTFA: " Short of a major bombshell revelation, any impeachment proceeding would likely be viewed by most Americans as an exercise in both political bitterness by Republicans, and paranoia by conspiracy theorists."
 
2013-01-16 10:02:05 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Would you prefer that we listen to Wayne Lapierre when he tell us gun owners cannot be trusted to follow gun laws and that they pose such a grave threat that every school in the country must be provided with armed guards to protect the children from gun owners?

Care to provide a source for that quote? Sounds like you're pretending he said something he did not.


Cherry picked. He said that gun owners were not to be trusted to follow gun laws, not just in general. Although if someone has a house with weapons mounted all over the walls, I wouldn't ask them to watch my kids.
 
2013-01-16 10:03:18 AM

Koalaesq: Fail in Human Form: The NRA didn't say a word after the shooting, until the media went full retard and they had to respond. The NRA isn't the group that writes its legislation, gleefully, in the blood of the dead before the bodies are even cold.

Yes, blame THE MEDIA for reporting on 26 dead schoolkids. Non-issue; didn't deserve all that coverage. It was just manufactured outrage; no normal person really cared about the dead kids or wanted gun control change because of it. All the media's fault.

Keep telling yourself these little lies if they make you feel better.


There's a difference between reporting on and having wall to wall coverage that promotes their agenda. Don't believe me? Look at all the other causes of death, or legitimate defensive uses of firearms, and see how much media coverage they get.
 
2013-01-16 10:03:32 AM

Fail in Human Form: Philip Francis Queeg: Fail in Human Form: Philip Francis Queeg: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Gun control drones - "Hey, we can't seem to form a rational argument against gun ownership. There are simply no facts or statistics backing our position. What should we do?"

Gun control drum-beater - "Find a crazy person on their side, then try to associate him with everyone who disagrees with us, we need to poison that well. Oh, and don't ever try to argue against 2nd amendment supporters' facts, it'll just provide any undecided people the opportunity to realize that we're just pandering to emotions, and our gun control plan won't do what we say it will. Just call them names, or pretend they said something else."

Would you prefer that we listen to Wayne Lapierre when he tell us gun owners cannot be trusted to follow gun laws and that they pose such a grave threat that every school in the country must be provided with armed guards to protect the children from gun owners?

Mass shootings are fairly rare, though they do get a lot of media attention. Many of my fellow lefties have gun control as a pet issue and enjoy nothing more than standing on the bodies of dead kids so they can push their pet agenda. The rest who hop onto the band wagon during the media blitz are just useful idiots.

Wayme Lapierre is a lefty now?

The NRA didn't say a word after the shooting, until the media went full retard and they had to respond. The NRA isn't the group that writes its legislation, gleefully, in the blood of the dead before the bodies are even cold.


Yes the violent deaths of 20 first graders shouldn't be news at all. The NRA should have maintained their silence until Lanza was officially inducted into the "Cold Dead Hands" Hall of Fame later this year.
 
2013-01-16 10:03:35 AM

Fail in Human Form:
The NRA didn't say a word after the shooting, until the media went full retard and they had to respond. The NRA isn't the group that writes its legislation, gleefully, in the blood of the dead before the bodies are even cold.

8/10. You'll get some good bites on that one
 
2013-01-16 10:06:11 AM

Bigdogdaddy: Fail in Human Form:
The NRA didn't say a word after the shooting, until the media went full retard and they had to respond. The NRA isn't the group that writes its legislation, gleefully, in the blood of the dead before the bodies are even cold.
8/10. You'll get some good bites on that one


Not trolling, I believe exactly what I say.
 
2013-01-16 10:06:14 AM
I'm not normally a big fan of using the blatantly crazy guy to represent a whole position on an issue. But, serious question: What is the difference between Jones' position on gun control and the NRA's position?
 
2013-01-16 10:06:58 AM

Fail in Human Form: Koalaesq: Fail in Human Form: The NRA didn't say a word after the shooting, until the media went full retard and they had to respond. The NRA isn't the group that writes its legislation, gleefully, in the blood of the dead before the bodies are even cold.

Yes, blame THE MEDIA for reporting on 26 dead schoolkids. Non-issue; didn't deserve all that coverage. It was just manufactured outrage; no normal person really cared about the dead kids or wanted gun control change because of it. All the media's fault.

Keep telling yourself these little lies if they make you feel better.

There's a difference between reporting on and having wall to wall coverage that promotes their agenda. Don't believe me? Look at all the other causes of death, or legitimate defensive uses of firearms, and see how much media coverage they get.


All of those other national tragedies where kindergartners were mowed down? Apples, Oranges, etc. Troll harder.
 
2013-01-16 10:07:29 AM

Fail in Human Form: There's a difference between reporting on and having wall to wall coverage that promotes their agenda. Don't believe me? Look at all the other causes of death, or legitimate defensive uses of firearms, and see how much media coverage they get.


I wouldn't be so quick to attribute an agenda to it when the more plausible reason is a deeply flawed news media in general.  Sensationalism sells.  And that story sold itself.  It was far more interesting and shocking to the mass audience than a discussion about Chicago's ridiculous rate of gun deaths.  Or the horrors occurring in Syria.  Or the consequences of a coup in Pakistan.  Or...
 
2013-01-16 10:07:47 AM

someonelse: I'm not normally a big fan of using the blatantly crazy guy to represent a whole position on an issue. But, serious question: What is the difference between Jones' position on gun control and the NRA's position?


He gets demonized because of his conspiracy theories, it allows people who don't want to listen to just dismiss him out of hand.
 
2013-01-16 10:07:48 AM
Yeah, um, no. I'd actually support criminalizing the introduction of blatantly unconstitutional legislation, or taking blatantly unconstitutional executive action. But at this particular point in time, neither of those is a crime, and without a crime there is no grounds for impeachment.

As it turns out, there are very few Presidents or folks in Congress, past or present, who would have avoided being nailed by such legislation. Washington might have managed, but even his immediate successor fails. This does not mean that these actions should not be made criminal; one could, in fact, argue that it signals the opposite. But in any event it's worth acknowledging that we have a big problem with lawmakers failing to respect, you know, the law.
 
2013-01-16 10:09:06 AM

Diogenes: Fail in Human Form: There's a difference between reporting on and having wall to wall coverage that promotes their agenda. Don't believe me? Look at all the other causes of death, or legitimate defensive uses of firearms, and see how much media coverage they get.

I wouldn't be so quick to attribute an agenda to it when the more plausible reason is a deeply flawed news media in general.  Sensationalism sells.  And that story sold itself.  It was far more interesting and shocking to the mass audience than a discussion about Chicago's ridiculous rate of gun deaths.  Or the horrors occurring in Syria.  Or the consequences of a coup in Pakistan.  Or...


I'll grant you that, but look at all the other issues I mentioned that kill more people (in total) than one incident that rarely get a mention.
 
2013-01-16 10:09:46 AM

Fail in Human Form: The NRA isn't the group that writes its legislation,


lulz
 
2013-01-16 10:10:04 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Gun control drones - "Hey, we can't seem to form a rational argument against gun ownership. There are simply no facts or statistics backing our position."


Fark JUST had an article saying that a gun was 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. Bam! There's your fact and/or statistic. You're welcome.

The truth is, most people are far too stupid to be trusted with lethal weaponry. We have to put warning labels on bleach saying "Do not drink". It's BLEACH! The absolute mind-boggling stupidity of the average person can never be overstated. That is what scares gun control proponents, that the gigantic force of 250 million+ complete idiots living in America having weapons of such power is dangerous to the other 50 million of us.

What needs to be done is requiring a license to own a gun, that must be renewed every year. In America we require driving licenses to drive (although those need renewing as well). We also require a license renewed every single year to perform CPR, which is so easy to perform that most children can pull it off after watching it on TV. If we can require people to get certified as smart enough to CPR, then we can require people to prove that they can be trusted with instant death in the palms of their hands.

PS: Amusingly enough, I'm also in favor of arming teachers. My mother grew up in Chicago, with armed teachers, and nobody tried a goddamn thing there. There's never been an inner-city school shooting. There's a reason for that. "Gun-Free zone" is codeword for "Defenseless".
 
2013-01-16 10:10:38 AM

Fail in Human Form: someonelse: I'm not normally a big fan of using the blatantly crazy guy to represent a whole position on an issue. But, serious question: What is the difference between Jones' position on gun control and the NRA's position?

He gets demonized because of his conspiracy theories, it allows people who don't want to listen to just dismiss him out of hand.


You didn't answer my question.
 
2013-01-16 10:10:46 AM

Fail in Human Form: someonelse: I'm not normally a big fan of using the blatantly crazy guy to represent a whole position on an issue. But, serious question: What is the difference between Jones' position on gun control and the NRA's position?

He gets demonized because of his conspiracy theories, it allows people who don't want to listen to just dismiss him out of hand.


Maybe perhaps because HE has an agenda.

If I'm looking for a voice of advocacy for gun rights, I'm not looking to him.
 
2013-01-16 10:13:13 AM

someonelse: Fail in Human Form: someonelse: I'm not normally a big fan of using the blatantly crazy guy to represent a whole position on an issue. But, serious question: What is the difference between Jones' position on gun control and the NRA's position?

He gets demonized because of his conspiracy theories, it allows people who don't want to listen to just dismiss him out of hand.

You didn't answer my question.


He's more aggressive in his call to resistance than the NRA is

Diogenes: Fail in Human Form: someonelse: I'm not normally a big fan of using the blatantly crazy guy to represent a whole position on an issue. But, serious question: What is the difference between Jones' position on gun control and the NRA's position?

He gets demonized because of his conspiracy theories, it allows people who don't want to listen to just dismiss him out of hand.

Maybe perhaps because HE has an agenda.

If I'm looking for a voice of advocacy for gun rights, I'm not looking to him.


Understandable, but when is it ok to "get mad"?
 
2013-01-16 10:13:49 AM

Fail in Human Form: Not trolling, I believe exactly what I say.


Except that the scolding preposterous response from the NRA made the media's gibberish look like the work of a Rhodes Scholar. I think even a cursory look at the issue, especially as it relates to the recent school shooting(s), suggests that there aren't a lot of mainstream media voices from either side of the issue making a ton of sense.

It's been a pure withdrawal into tired rhetoric from both sides, and neither one has a chance of being the "solution" to a problem that probably has more cultural causes than legislative ones.
 
2013-01-16 10:15:38 AM

Mercutio74: Fail in Human Form: Not trolling, I believe exactly what I say.

Except that the scolding preposterous response from the NRA made the media's gibberish look like the work of a Rhodes Scholar. I think even a cursory look at the issue, especially as it relates to the recent school shooting(s), suggests that there aren't a lot of mainstream media voices from either side of the issue making a ton of sense.

It's been a pure withdrawal into tired rhetoric from both sides, and neither one has a chance of being the "solution" to a problem that probably has more cultural causes than legislative ones.


That's because the NRA has refused to let people use this tragedy to force them into "giving in". If I feel I've given up far to much already, and you cry for more, what's left to fill time on the 24/7 news channels other than rhetoric?
 
2013-01-16 10:17:24 AM

Fail in Human Form: Understandable, but when is it ok to "get mad"?


From a PR standpoint, related to this issue... it will never be ok to "get mad". The last thing the gun lobby should want is for any spokesman (official or not) to appear to be anything but calm and reasonable.

As a group of individuals that wishes to maintain laws that allow lethal weapons to be readily available to the general public, you cannot appear out of control of your own emotions. Angry people are far more likely to do violence to their fellow man than calm and reasonable people. This is basic stuff.
 
2013-01-16 10:18:10 AM

Koalaesq: In today's linked article, we learn that a bitter and delusional man is attempting a petty revenge against the president that the president will never even hear about, let alone be affected by.

Wow. This is some New York Times-level sh*t right there.


Partially true, but Alex Jones is more of a huckster snake-oil charlatan taking money from bitter and delusional men.
 
2013-01-16 10:18:42 AM

Insaniteus: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Gun control drones - "Hey, we can't seem to form a rational argument against gun ownership. There are simply no facts or statistics backing our position."

Fark JUST had an article saying that a gun was 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. Bam! There's your fact and/or statistic. You're welcome.


That statistic was shown to be untrue in that thread.

Insaniteus: The truth is, most people are far too stupid to be trusted with lethal weaponry.


Considering the fact that there's about 200,000,000 people in this country who have access to guns, and we only have 12,000 gun deaths, most of which are gang related and many with illegally obtained guns, MOST people are very responsible with their guns. In fact, those who aren't are a minuscule minority relatively speaking.

Insaniteus: What needs to be done is requiring a license to own a gun, that must be renewed every year.


I see no reason why that would make anyone safer.

Insaniteus: PS: Amusingly enough, I'm also in favor of arming teachers. My mother grew up in Chicago, with armed teachers, and nobody tried a goddamn thing there. There's never been an inner-city school shooting. There's a reason for that. "Gun-Free zone" is codeword for "Defenseless".


I'm not in favor of arming teachers, but I think they shouldn't be forbidden from being armed. It should be their choice.
 
2013-01-16 10:19:24 AM

Fail in Human Form: That's because the NRA has refused to let people use this tragedy to force them into "giving in". If I feel I've given up far to much already, and you cry for more, what's left to fill time on the 24/7 news channels other than rhetoric?


I understand that that would be their goal. But that press conference was an exercise in tone deaf hubris.
 
2013-01-16 10:22:59 AM

InmanRoshi: Koalaesq: In today's linked article, we learn that a bitter and delusional man is attempting a petty revenge against the president that the president will never even hear about, let alone be affected by.

Wow. This is some New York Times-level sh*t right there.

Partially true, but Alex Jones is more of a huckster snake-oil charlatan taking money from bitter and delusional men.


I dunno, you might be right, but I think these guys end up believing their own lies after a while. They feed into their own psychosis, as it were
 
2013-01-16 10:24:20 AM
I'm so proud of the GOP! This time it'll work! Unlike 1996 and the election rout after!
 
2013-01-16 10:25:10 AM

Fail in Human Form: Understandable, but when is it ok to "get mad"?


That's a much broader question.  All I can say is if I'm mad, and I want people to know it and take me seriously, I will try to use a voice or look to another voice that can be taken seriously.  In all things, if you want to get traction on an issue, you have to be heard by the people who don't share your opinion.

More specific to the topic at hand, that's why I just don't understand the NRA's strategy here.
 
2013-01-16 10:25:50 AM
These people are going to get much more violent soon, aren't they?
 
2013-01-16 10:29:14 AM

Mercutio74: From a PR standpoint, related to this issue... it will never be ok to "get mad". The last thing the gun lobby should want is for any spokesman (official or not) to appear to be anything but calm and reasonable.


The NRA makes its millions from memberships and donations. Their whole business model is to appeal to the "low information" demographic, and stoke their fears. They're not worried about losing the memberships of moderate, non-insane gun owners, because where else are those people gonna go? But they can draw in new money by trying to get more and more idiots scared enough of jack-booted government gun-takers that they'll open their wallets.
 
2013-01-16 10:30:27 AM

someonelse: Mercutio74: From a PR standpoint, related to this issue... it will never be ok to "get mad". The last thing the gun lobby should want is for any spokesman (official or not) to appear to be anything but calm and reasonable.

The NRA makes its millions from memberships and donations. Their whole business model is to appeal to the "low information" demographic, and stoke their fears. They're not worried about losing the memberships of moderate, non-insane gun owners, because where else are those people gonna go? But they can draw in new money by trying to get more and more idiots scared enough of jack-booted government gun-takers that they'll open their wallets.


Ooops, I forgot to point out the similarity to Jones's business model.
 
2013-01-16 10:30:27 AM

Smashed Hat: That'll carry a lot of weight. Next up, a bill to make Facebook 'likes' legally binding


i.imgur.com

Fartbongo better watch. Alex Jones and his friends from Cobra Kai are going to take him down, man!
 
2013-01-16 10:32:45 AM
Well the Birth Certificate didn't go anywhere, Benghazi was a non-starter, and Romney was a bust. Time to pull something else out of their asses.
 
2013-01-16 10:34:00 AM

Fail in Human Form: Koalaesq: Fail in Human Form: The NRA didn't say a word after the shooting, until the media went full retard and they had to respond. The NRA isn't the group that writes its legislation, gleefully, in the blood of the dead before the bodies are even cold.

Yes, blame THE MEDIA for reporting on 26 dead schoolkids. Non-issue; didn't deserve all that coverage. It was just manufactured outrage; no normal person really cared about the dead kids or wanted gun control change because of it. All the media's fault.

Keep telling yourself these little lies if they make you feel better.

There's a difference between reporting on and having wall to wall coverage that promotes their agenda. Don't believe me? Look at all the other causes of death, or legitimate defensive uses of firearms, and see how much media coverage they get.


You're right. I'm sickened by the fact that the media refuses to cover the 20 people who died in a mass killing where the killer just used soup spoons. Because soup spoons are tools in the exact same way that guns are tools....TOOLS OF THE DEAD! But then again, we don't ban soup spoons from schools, so maybe that's why there have not been any soup spoon mass killings recently. But you would think that since every school has soup spoons (and I bet some cafeteria workers probably are carrying concealed soup spoons) that those very same soup spoons would prevent mass killings by other tools...like football-helment shaped eraser mass killings.

Stupid liberal media.
 
2013-01-16 10:36:24 AM

snowshovel: Fail in Human Form: Koalaesq: Fail in Human Form: The NRA didn't say a word after the shooting, until the media went full retard and they had to respond. The NRA isn't the group that writes its legislation, gleefully, in the blood of the dead before the bodies are even cold.

Yes, blame THE MEDIA for reporting on 26 dead schoolkids. Non-issue; didn't deserve all that coverage. It was just manufactured outrage; no normal person really cared about the dead kids or wanted gun control change because of it. All the media's fault.

Keep telling yourself these little lies if they make you feel better.

There's a difference between reporting on and having wall to wall coverage that promotes their agenda. Don't believe me? Look at all the other causes of death, or legitimate defensive uses of firearms, and see how much media coverage they get.

You're right. I'm sickened by the fact that the media refuses to cover the 20 people who died in a mass killing where the killer just used soup spoons. Because soup spoons are tools in the exact same way that guns are tools....TOOLS OF THE DEAD! But then again, we don't ban soup spoons from schools, so maybe that's why there have not been any soup spoon mass killings recently. But you would think that since every school has soup spoons (and I bet some cafeteria workers probably are carrying concealed soup spoons) that those very same soup spoons would prevent mass killings by other tools...like football-helment shaped eraser mass killings.

Stupid liberal media.


I think I love you
 
2013-01-16 10:37:22 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: we only have 12,000 gun deaths, most of which are gang related and many with illegally obtained guns, MOST people are very responsible with their guns. In fact, those who aren't are a minuscule minority relatively speaking.


upload.wikimedia.org

Gee,where have I heard this misleading bullshiat before?
 
2013-01-16 10:39:02 AM
Alex Jones claims...

Yeah, stopped right there. This guy is a farking idiot and couldn't care less what he has to say about anything.
 
2013-01-16 10:39:16 AM

snowshovel: Fail in Human Form: Koalaesq: Fail in Human Form: The NRA didn't say a word after the shooting, until the media went full retard and they had to respond. The NRA isn't the group that writes its legislation, gleefully, in the blood of the dead before the bodies are even cold.

Yes, blame THE MEDIA for reporting on 26 dead schoolkids. Non-issue; didn't deserve all that coverage. It was just manufactured outrage; no normal person really cared about the dead kids or wanted gun control change because of it. All the media's fault.

Keep telling yourself these little lies if they make you feel better.

There's a difference between reporting on and having wall to wall coverage that promotes their agenda. Don't believe me? Look at all the other causes of death, or legitimate defensive uses of firearms, and see how much media coverage they get.

You're right. I'm sickened by the fact that the media refuses to cover the 20 people who died in a mass killing where the killer just used soup spoons. Because soup spoons are tools in the exact same way that guns are tools....TOOLS OF THE DEAD! But then again, we don't ban soup spoons from schools, so maybe that's why there have not been any soup spoon mass killings recently. But you would think that since every school has soup spoons (and I bet some cafeteria workers probably are carrying concealed soup spoons) that those very same soup spoons would prevent mass killings by other tools...like football-helment shaped eraser mass killings.

Stupid liberal media.


Look, just be honest. You want to ban many, if not all, weapons from civilian hands. At least then we can have an honest discussion about the issue.
 
2013-01-16 10:42:15 AM

Fail in Human Form: You want to ban many, if not all, weapons from civilian hands.


This is what paranoids actually believe, and I should know.

/former NRA member
 
2013-01-16 10:43:30 AM

Somacandra: Fail in Human Form: You want to ban many, if not all, weapons from civilian hands.

This is what paranoids actually believe, and I should know.

/former NRA member


Fudd like typing detected.
 
2013-01-16 10:43:58 AM

someonelse: The NRA makes its millions from memberships and donations. Their whole business model is to appeal to the "low information" demographic, and stoke their fears. They're not worried about losing the memberships of moderate, non-insane gun owners, because where else are those people gonna go? But they can draw in new money by trying to get more and more idiots scared enough of jack-booted government gun-takers that they'll open their wallets.


But the NRA also strives to curb legislation on gun control. It's much harder to do that if you look increasingly nutjobbier every time you let Wayne out of his cage and put him in front of non-believers. In order to effectively control a politician you have to do it not only with donation money, but also with the threat that you'll publicly expose their unpatriotic beliefs with a poor "report card".

The rank and file lifelong members of the NRA will always be members and they will believe as they're told. The real fight in this modern era is for thos mid-high info gun owners and the public perception that will allow the NRA to function as the guardian of the 2nd Amendment that it claims to be.
 
2013-01-16 10:44:14 AM

Somacandra: BraveNewCheneyWorld: we only have 12,000 gun deaths, most of which are gang related and many with illegally obtained guns, MOST people are very responsible with their guns. In fact, those who aren't are a minuscule minority relatively speaking.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x275]

Gee,where have I heard this misleading bullshiat before?


You're right, that article is misleading bullshiat.
 
2013-01-16 10:45:31 AM

dittybopper: DrPainMD: I can't think of a president who hasn't met the requirements for impeachment.

James Garfield.

Hard to fark things up too badly when you're only in office for 6 months.


I hear he was a little stingy in his appointment for ambassador to France.

/obscure?
 
2013-01-16 10:46:38 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Somacandra: BraveNewCheneyWorld: we only have 12,000 gun deaths, most of which are gang related and many with illegally obtained guns, MOST people are very responsible with their guns. In fact, those who aren't are a minuscule minority relatively speaking.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x275]

Gee,where have I heard this misleading bullshiat before?

You're right, that article is misleading bullshiat.


Okay where's your citation?
 
2013-01-16 10:49:42 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: You're right, that article is misleading bullshiat.


The important thing is that you deny Frum's argument that we are caught in an inescapable web of mutuality and that American problems of gun violence cannot simply be labeled as 'somebody else's problem.' As long as you can do that, you'll rest easy with an untroubled conscience. And isn't that the real point of all this?
 
2013-01-16 10:55:30 AM
"Bringing frivolous charges of impeachment" really ought to be sufficient grounds to impeach a legislator.
 
2013-01-16 10:57:41 AM

Koalaesq: InmanRoshi: Koalaesq: In today's linked article, we learn that a bitter and delusional man is attempting a petty revenge against the president that the president will never even hear about, let alone be affected by.

Wow. This is some New York Times-level sh*t right there.

Partially true, but Alex Jones is more of a huckster snake-oil charlatan taking money from bitter and delusional men.

I dunno, you might be right, but I think these guys end up believing their own lies after a while. They feed into their own psychosis, as it were



He used to be a "true believer". He started out with just a public access show in Austin doing this out of personal passion. He successfully spearheaded a fundraising campaign to rebuild the Branch Davidian as a memorial. He was a RON PAUL supporter in the 90's before all the cool were doing it.

Then he found out you can make a lot of money doing this stuff and now it's about as cynical as it gets. Today he's mostly concerned about self promotion and building his conspiracy mogul empire. When I heard he was going to be on CNN/Piers Morgan, I knew right away he was going to create a spectacle to get people talking about him.
 
2013-01-16 10:57:54 AM

coeyagi: Whiskey Pete: I_Am_Weasel: Mike_LowELL: Submitter seems to have skipped Article VI, Section XII, which says "those who provide taxation without representation" are not allowed to be president, and "the Founding Fathers are rolling in their grave at the sight of this Taxbongo".

I thought you were crazy, then I went to a constitution website, used CTRL-F and entered "Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves at the sight of this Taxbongo" and... there it was.

You learn something new every day.

Yes. The founding fathers dreamed of a semi-literate society of morbidly obese gun hicks.

Just to put that in graphical representation:

These Guys:

[pakistanisforpeace.files.wordpress.com image 850x850]

Are Very Proud of These Guys:

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 504x604]

And who wouldn't be?

"P
A
T

R


I

O


T


I

C

DESCENDING!"


Those are the founding grandfathers, the true founding fathers are Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman. We all know how they felt about Southerners and states rights.
 
2013-01-16 10:59:40 AM

NateGrey: JAMES YEAGER (1/9/2013): fark that. I'm telling you that if that happens, it's going to spark a Civil War, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. ... I'm not farking putting up with this, I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator, I'm not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people!

Link

Gun owners are so sane and rational.


No one is saying they're going to start shooting people though.
 
Displayed 50 of 189 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report