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.

(The Raw Story)   Ted Nugent may know a lot of things - how to play the hell out of a guitar, how to hunt with any type of weapon, how to swing from a vine wearing a loincloth - but he apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "treason"   (rawstory.com) divider line 469
    More: Fail, weapons  
•       •       •

20455 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2013 at 9:18 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-23 12:53:21 PM  
Ted Nugent is crazier than a water bucket made out of shiat.

Subby goes too far, however, in mentioning treason. Sedition is a more pertinent legal concept.

Sedition is overt speech or action that is deemed by an established authority as tending to disrupt the established order and tending towards insurrection. It covers actions which are not themselves violent, such as attempting to prove that the Head of State is illegitimate, a tyrant, an alien, an enemy of the people, etc. This leads into seditious libel which has become the stock in trade of many segments of the loony partisan population.

Ted Nugent has clearly quaffed the kool-aid, not from a Dixie Cup, but direct from the plastic barrel, like a football player celebrating a win. I doubt if he is actually in league with foreign agents or even domestic agents of insurrection (although he implies this) but he is clearly a few seeds short of a full gourd.

He may have been drinking from the firehose of Fox Propaganda, as he seems to have blown his brains out.
 
2013-01-23 12:54:48 PM  

catchow: Farkage:
Yes, I'm sure that after committing treason, starting a revolution, and risking their lives for the sake of creating this country that the Founding Fathers fully intended their work to be undone by simply redefining a word or two. Because that just makes sense.

You're trying to have both arguments at once. EITHER the Founding FathersTM fully intended that the document be static and open only to literal interpretation based on the language, standards and mores of the time (in which case, using your printing press example, anyone who has ever used an electrical or electronic printing device has gone beyond the protections for a free press provided under the Constitution); OR the document was fully intended to (with)stand the tests of time beyond the Revolutionary War. Which is it?


To clarify... if you are indeed arguing FOR Constitutional literalism as your post suggests, ergo you are arguing for your own preferred brand of re-interpretation...that the 2nd Amendment really meant (& means) that ANY American can have access to ANY gun (including anything that has ever been invented since 1776) ANYWHERE at ANY time without regulation or constraint. Which is patent nonsense.
 
2013-01-23 12:56:48 PM  

catchow: catchow: Farkage:
Yes, I'm sure that after committing treason, starting a revolution, and risking their lives for the sake of creating this country that the Founding Fathers fully intended their work to be undone by simply redefining a word or two. Because that just makes sense.

You're trying to have both arguments at once. EITHER the Founding FathersTM fully intended that the document be static and open only to literal interpretation based on the language, standards and mores of the time (in which case, using your printing press example, anyone who has ever used an electrical or electronic printing device has gone beyond the protections for a free press provided under the Constitution); OR the document was fully intended to (with)stand the tests of time beyond the Revolutionary War. Which is it?

To clarify... if you are indeed arguing FOR Constitutional literalism as your post suggests, ergo you are arguing for your own preferred brand of re-interpretation...that the 2nd Amendment really meant (& means) that ANY American can have access to ANY gun (including anything that has ever been invented since 1776) ANYWHERE at ANY time without regulation or constraint. Which is patent nonsense.


Dammit! Arguing against your preferred re-interpretation. Preview is your friend...
 
2013-01-23 01:00:34 PM  

garandman1a: Actually it appears that the subby doesn't know the meaning of the word.

Like it or not, the 2nd Amendment is about ensuring that should the government get out of hand, the people have the ability to rectify it. Many people feel it is out of hand, and it's hard to argue with their reasoning. Not that I condone it, but I can't argue against it logically either.


Of course you can argue against that illogical nonsense, citizens should have nuclear weapons and armed drones?
 
2013-01-23 01:03:01 PM  

HAMMERTOE: in fact, the "printing press" analogy is so apt, we ought to implement it in other Constitutional Rights as well.

In honor of the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade yesterday, we hereby affirm the right of all women to obtain abortions. However, to cut down on the abuse of this right, all abortions in the future must be performed with a coat- hanger, as it was the prevailing technology when the country was formed.


OH that's the hammer.
 
2013-01-23 01:06:36 PM  

Farkage: The militia was, and is, the body of the people. It has been clearly stated back then as well as recently. Feel free to look that up yourself.


I guess we'll have to rewrite the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States.

/Those Founders were such modern revisionist history trolls.
//Read them so you understand "well disciplined" and "Militia".
///Take your time. We'll wait.
 
2013-01-23 01:06:55 PM  
Ted, you're not shocking or outraging anyone anymore. Get some help. Maybe it's time to start trying some of those drugs you eschewed all those years. Spark up a joint, pop some Xanax and chill the f out.
 
2013-01-23 01:09:07 PM  

david_gaithersburg: I did my part by voting for Ron Paul and joining the Tea Party. All of that resulted in a mini-revolution via the biggest electoral slaughter in seventy-two years. What have you done for the country lately?


This is just the cutest, most adorable thing I've ever read. You're just precious.
 
2013-01-23 01:10:22 PM  

900RR: Vodka Zombie: 900RR: Hey submitard,

I'm glad you are an expert on Treason. Where were you when this biatch was engaging in it?

[i47.tinypic.com image 460x307]

Oh, when she did it, it was "free speech", right?

Let it go, man.  Let it go.

Exactly, that's my point. Treason isn't even a crime any more. If it were, she would still be in prison.

/Actually, that's not true. Jimmy Carter would have pardoned her.


Have you ever considered the possibility that what she did couldn't be defined as "treason"? That she was a part of one of hundreds of delegations from the U.S. to visit North vietnam during the war?
 
2013-01-23 01:10:56 PM  

Thune: keylock71: Thune: And you think Obama knows what "shall not be infringed" means?

I don't know.... Do you know what "Well-Regulated" means?

And this is where the ignorance is because you just demonstrated that YOU don't know what "Well-Regulated" means.

Back when the Constitution was written the phrase "well-regulated" meant "in good order" or "well running".

They use to refer to clocks as "Well-regulated".

They didn't mean there were laws written by the federal government about how a clock should run.

The phrase "well-regulated" in the Constitution had NOTHING to do with written regulations by the federal or state government, as the person of today would take that phrase to mean.


Would you call shooting up places and killing scores of innocent people a smooth, orderly and well maintained militia/populace? No? I didn't think so.
 
2013-01-23 01:11:14 PM  

Farkage: catchow: Farkage: keylock71: Thune: And you think Obama knows what "shall not be infringed" means?

I don't know.... Do you know what "Well-Regulated" means?

Yes, it means "in its natural state". Look up the dictionary definitions from an 18th century dictionary and see for yourself how that phrase was used when the 2nd amendment was written.

I hardly ever post in Politics threads, and I'm probably just feeding the trolls, but...

I find it the height of ridiculousness that Teahadists and insurrectionists keep trotting out this lame trope when they fulminate about the "true" meaning of the 2nd Amendment ("LOL look it up in an 18th century dictionary libtardz!!!"). I mean, seriously, have YOU ever consulted an 18th century dictionary? Perhaps you should, and the first definitions you should consider looking up would be "gun," "firearm," "matchlock," and "musket". You might be surprised that the all-knowing Founding Fathers had no way of anticipating the leaps in weapons technology that we see today, more than TWO CENTURIES LATER. I mean, today's date and time was an even more remote a future to Jefferson and Adams as the Star Trek universe is to us. Shocking, I know. Oh, and while you're at it, look up the definition of "militia" while you're at it. Then consider consulting an actual history book or two, maybe even some of the writings of the actual Founding Fathers, to gain perspective on what was actually happening at that time and what people actually thought about it.

I know, a truly radical thought. One might even say, revolutionary.

In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy the richly deserved mockery that so richly, skewers, roasts and devours your derp.

/Dammit, now I'm hungry. Roast derp for lunch, anyone?

So you are okay with restricting freedom of the press to hand set printing presses?


Maybe. Think of the dent that would put in Rupert Murdoch's reach. We might even get truly local news back and noncorporatist perspectives on politics.
You'd have to kill of the internet first, though.
 
2013-01-23 01:13:12 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

What are these treasons!?!?!?
 
2013-01-23 01:17:22 PM  

buster_v: 78 Days.


hahaha love this part:

On April 12th, 2012 the Motor City Meathead promised us: "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will be either be dead or in jail by this time next year."

I assume he was trying to get out the vote for Obama. Anyway, here is a helpful reminder to him. Do the right thing Ted
 
2013-01-23 01:17:47 PM  
The Secret Service is probably drawing straws for who gets to deal with this nutjob next.
 
2013-01-23 01:19:52 PM  

david_gaithersburg: I hate to burst your bubble, but England was not a foreign government as you believe, it was our government.


I hate to burst your bubble but he didn't say "foreign government" he said "foreign entity". Meaning people across the ocean that were foreign to our land.
 
2013-01-23 01:24:35 PM  
i'd like to take a stab at reframing things slightly.

Not everyone has the same expectations here. I'm a gun nutt. Many of my friends are gun nutts. After talking to them, to others, and poking the interwebs I've come to the following conclusion:

There is a group of people in this nation that believe the gov's job, as defined by the founders and constitution is to not disallow freedom of choice in all things. By that I mean it is meant to do as little as possible so as to not trample freedom of choice and expression.

It's done a poor job of that for a long time now and one could point out a great deal of disenfranchisement that has occurred because of it ranging from gay-marriage bans to jim-crow laws to firearm control measures.

We can argue till we are blue in the face about what the Real Job of gov is however.. that is their stance. Mine may differ. So may yours. Perhaps all of us even have valid positions. But it isn't going to change that they already feel things have been compromised too far and there is a push for more.

Violence has always been part of the political process. In fact, its the point of the political process. Politics exists because its too costly, too burdensome, and too vile to slug out every issue. Once the majority has sorted out its opinion you are still left with an unpleasant fact: what the majority wants will rarely be in the best interest of the minorities.

Minorities end up with one of about three options: Endure, Be obliterated, or resist. This was duely noted by the founders and has been observed over and over again in the past century in this nation and most others. Once you produce a group that feels sufficently disenfranchised you get such things as the KKK, Black Panthers, Abortion Clinic bombers and et al.

You can't satisfy all of them. Never will. Point was to make it a local issue so that if you objected in place A, you had the option of going to place B that suited you better. We don't seem satisfied by that anymore because what our neighbor does or owns offends us. Even if that neighbor is in a different town, city, or state. Because it still represents 'immorality' to us, however we define it. In the current context owning something that might make another 'less safe' is an immorality.

Whats my point? I'm a dirty, dirty sinner and the concept of a 'Moral Majority' terrified me. It was tyranny of the majority writ large based on religious doctrine. The new 'safety majority' also terrifies me. I like my choices, and my risks. Its just another form of not-leaving-me-alone; or, of not-leaving-it-local-so-i-have-some-sort-of-chance-no-matter-how-small -a-minority-i-be.

I'd argue that it is not the purpose of a democratic republic to oppress or dissolve any group or lifestyle; and further, that when you attempt it you'll get backlash in words, sit-ins, and violence. Your individual point of view is irrelevant to this effect as is the will of the majority. It's based out of the minorities point of view.

Hence if you make a group feel cornered and disenfranchised what do you expect to have happen? By its nature they view firearm regulation as being irrational to their point of view. That it has a preceived cost to you is irrelevant; as it has preceived value to them.

I do not claim that most have successfully abstracted to the level written above; but the point of view is probably pretty accurate. And, bluntly, the notion that a gov is of the people but has privileges granted to its agents beyond that of the people is pretty offensive and contradictary. Either we are self - governed by our consent and thus the powers of the gov are a subset of our own; or we are subjects of the government.
 
2013-01-23 01:27:02 PM  
His comment is just as stupid as the guy who compared the NRA to the Nazis.

But an even better gem from that page: Florida cops Taser naked burglar who pooped and masturbated when homeowner pulled a gun.

With a great pic!!
 
2013-01-23 01:31:32 PM  

Farkage: keylock71: Thune: And you think Obama knows what "shall not be infringed" means?

I don't know.... Do you know what "Well-Regulated" means?

Yes, it means "in its natural state". Look up the dictionary definitions from an 18th century dictionary and see for yourself how that phrase was used when the 2nd amendment was written.



So you are advocating that the only arms civilians may possess are black powder, muzzle loaded, flint lock muskets. If we are only using 18th century usage of phrases we cannot consider arms to include any modern weapon.

\Bonus: wheel locks could be in there too.
\\could make a case for Napoleonic cannons as well.
 
2013-01-23 01:37:19 PM  
Craptastic

karnal: Welcome to the liberal mindset. Doesn't matter if you're a musician, author, sports figure or movie star or whatever....once you are tagged a 'conservative' anything you have ever done before sucks and you are an asshat.

/closed-minded reactionaries and bigots

I love it when retards try to tell me what's going on in my own mind so that they can "argue" against it.



Not even sure who you are....so not only have I not told you what is going on in your little pea-brain of a mind, I don't even care.
 
2013-01-23 01:45:30 PM  

GiantRex: Speaking to fans during an NBC-sponsored gun show, Nugent said that Obama "is attempting to re-implement the tyranny of King George that we escaped from in 1776," adding: "If you want another Concord bridge, I've got some buddies."

Acts committed by King George which led to the American revolution:

- Navigation Acts (blocked American trade with the French, Spanish, and Dutch)
- Molasses Act (tax for the purpose of making the British export cheaper than that from the French West Indies, "encouraging" colonists to buy British)
- Royal Proclamation of 1763 (restricted settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains)
- Sugar Act (enacted because of colonial evasion of the Molasses Act, also known as the American Revenues Act)
- Currency Act (regulated and restricted the paper money issued in the colonies for the purpose of preventing British creditors and merchants from being paid in depreciated colonial currency, resulted in a shortage of coin in the colonies and complicated the payment of debts)
- Quartering Acts (primary reason for the existence of the Third Amendment)
- Stamp Act of 1765 (required printed materials to be printed on special paper with an embossed revenue stamp, stamps had to be purchased with hard currency [see Currency Act], tax levied for the purpose of paying for the Seven Years' War)
- Declaratory Act (asserted that parliament's authority was the same in the colonies as it was in Britain and therefore could pass laws binding on the American colonies... despite the colonies having no representation in parliament)
- Townshend Acts (series of five laws enacted for the purpose of forcing the colonies to subsidize British occupation and law enforcement in the colonies)
- Tea Act (tax/racket enacted for the purpose of forcing colonists to buy off the surplus of tea from the British East India Company, resulted in the infamous Boston Tea Party)
- Quebec Act (extended Quebec's boundaries to the Ohio River, shutting out territorial claims of the 13 colonie ...


Not to mention the 4 million pound sterling the colonies owed the crown....

Let's see... racking up a bill. Check! Refusing to pay... Check! Acting traitorous... Check! Just like the modern GOP.
 
2013-01-23 01:45:37 PM  
The guns in this country have more rights than I do
 
2013-01-23 01:52:34 PM  

HAMMERTOE: david_gaithersburg: Diogenes: david_gaithersburg: I have a silly hang up on an odd concept called freedom, and freedom from tyranny. Sorry, but I do not share your desire to be a mere subject to huge and out of control government.

So we should have taken up arms against Bush and his government when they came up with the Patriot Act. Got it.

.
Yes.

Afraid I have to agree as well.


Nice to see the farktards in this thread are actively self-identifying themselves for us...
 
2013-01-23 01:53:09 PM  
I wonder what old Sweaty Teddy would do in the face of an actual authoritarian government?

Suppose Ted was stuffed into a van, taken to an unknown location, threatened because of the statements he made in public, and dumped out on the street. He returns home to find his house ransacked and several personal items missing (guns, hard drives, etc). He finds himself conspicuously followed and monitored, and quickly figures out that even his private communications are compromised. He is made a pariah in state run media, a smear campaign that destroys his reputation and livelihood. He soon finds that he can't even trust his friends and coworkers. He is eventually formally arrested on trumped up charges, is tried before a kangaroo court, and disappears.

When this happens to him, then I'll pay attention to his whining.
 
2013-01-23 01:56:47 PM  
Olympus Mons

The guns in this country have more rights than I do



You have the right to remain silent....maybe you should use it.
 
2013-01-23 02:06:11 PM  

HAMMERTOE: david_gaithersburg: Diogenes: david_gaithersburg: I have a silly hang up on an odd concept called freedom, and freedom from tyranny. Sorry, but I do not share your desire to be a mere subject to huge and out of control government.

So we should have taken up arms against Bush and his government when they came up with the Patriot Act. Got it.

.
Yes.

Afraid I have to agree as well.


This person also agrees:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-23 02:07:34 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: So we should have taken up arms against the government when they passed the Patriot Act, but you didn't because you were too busy waiting to vote in the election that was coming up eleven years later?

So that'd be a "yes, I'm a coward"


But he talks tough on the internet. That's a type of bravery, right?
 
2013-01-23 02:09:06 PM  
So you fark tards think you're allowed to take lives whenever your beliefs of what government is doesn't jive with reality?

You know who thought that?

upload.wikimedia.org

Your not patriots your farking traitors who just because things don't go your way in a democracy you think you should force you beliefs on others through force.
 
2013-01-23 02:09:15 PM  
Regarding "Playing the hell out of the guitar," subs, eh. Not really. He doesn't do much but rehash Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels' melodies and hump the pentatonic scale. Playing fast isn't necessarily playing good. I love those Gibson Byrdlands of his though.
 
2013-01-23 02:13:21 PM  

chuggernaught: Farkage: keylock71: Thune: And you think Obama knows what "shall not be infringed" means?

I don't know.... Do you know what "Well-Regulated" means?

Yes, it means "in its natural state". Look up the dictionary definitions from an 18th century dictionary and see for yourself how that phrase was used when the 2nd amendment was written.


So you are advocating that the only arms civilians may possess are black powder, muzzle loaded, flint lock muskets. If we are only using 18th century usage of phrases we cannot consider arms to include any modern weapon.

\Bonus: wheel locks could be in there too.
\\could make a case for Napoleonic cannons as well.


It applies to arms in current use. That includes the evil black ones. And no, nuclear weapons are not "arms" by definition.
 
2013-01-23 02:14:36 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Subby forgot "how to avoid the draft."

[i48.photobucket.com image 248x496]


I see he hasn't changed much since...
 
2013-01-23 02:16:03 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: The militia was, and is, the body of the people. It has been clearly stated back then as well as recently. Feel free to look that up yourself.

I guess we'll have to rewrite the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States.

/Those Founders were such modern revisionist history trolls.
//Read them so you understand "well disciplined" and "Militia".
///Take your time. We'll wait.


The militia act was written after the bill of rights, wasn't it. You should take Calendar Reading 101 at your local community college.
 
2013-01-23 02:21:11 PM  

catchow: catchow: Farkage:
Yes, I'm sure that after committing treason, starting a revolution, and risking their lives for the sake of creating this country that the Founding Fathers fully intended their work to be undone by simply redefining a word or two. Because that just makes sense.

You're trying to have both arguments at once. EITHER the Founding FathersTM fully intended that the document be static and open only to literal interpretation based on the language, standards and mores of the time (in which case, using your printing press example, anyone who has ever used an electrical or electronic printing device has gone beyond the protections for a free press provided under the Constitution); OR the document was fully intended to (with)stand the tests of time beyond the Revolutionary War. Which is it?

To clarify... if you are indeed arguing FOR Constitutional literalism as your post suggests, ergo you are arguing for your own preferred brand of re-interpretation...that the 2nd Amendment really meant (& means) that ANY American can have access to ANY gun (including anything that has ever been invented since 1776) ANYWHERE at ANY time without regulation or constraint. Which is patent nonsense.


I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. The 2nd is clear it refers to the right of "The People" to bear arms and saying that "well regulated" means anything close to what people think it does now is crap. If people say it should mean strictly controlled because that is the "new" definition, they are idiots. The printing press analogy is for the morons that say the 2nd amendment only protects the right to have a musket. Is that is your argument, write a letter to the newspaper with your quill pen and have them publisi it with their manually set printing press.
 
2013-01-23 02:23:21 PM  

Farkage: And no, nuclear weapons are not "arms" by definition.


If handguns and rifles are "small arms", what are "large arms"?
 
2013-01-23 02:24:28 PM  

keylock71: Thune: And you think Obama knows what "shall not be infringed" means?

I don't know.... Do you know what "Well-Regulated" means?


Yes. at the time the constitution was written it meant "equipped" -that the arms of a standing army were considered "regular" and the footmen "regulars" and the uniforms and boots etc were "regulation". Thus a well regulated militia meant having the same items as any standing army foot soldier would be expected to have. "remember we are discussing arms not armaments like cannon and warship.
You modem kids might need to think in order of sports. Like a regulation basket ball and shoes etc to be a well regulated or equipped team.
for you wanna be historians read the following ,especially New Hampsires wording:

From the Madison Resolution, June 8, 1789.

Resolved, that the following amendments ought to be proposed by Congress to the legislatures of the states, to become, if ratified by three fourths thereof, part of the constitution of the United States... The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person...

AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY STATES

Massachusetts Convention - Did not propose a keeping and bearing amendment, nor a militia nor a standing army amendment.

South Carolina - Proposed no keeping and bearing, or militia or standing army amendment.

New Hampshire - TENTH, That no standing Army shall be Kept up in time of Peace unless with the consent of three fourths of the Members of each branch of Congress, nor shall Soldiers in Time of Peace be Quartered upon private Houses without the consent of the Owners... TWELFTH Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.
 
2013-01-23 02:27:00 PM  

Farkage: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: The militia was, and is, the body of the people. It has been clearly stated back then as well as recently. Feel free to look that up yourself.

I guess we'll have to rewrite the Militia Acts of 1792 and the Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States.

/Those Founders were such modern revisionist history trolls.
//Read them so you understand "well disciplined" and "Militia".
///Take your time. We'll wait.

The militia act was written after the bill of rights, wasn't it. You should take Calendar Reading 101 at your local community college.


The simple fact that the Militia Acts were written and passed by the Founders in 1792 standardized the Regulations that were passed in 1779 should show you exactly why your specious "definitions" of Militia and well regulated are pants-on-fire-on-head potato.
 
2013-01-23 02:28:11 PM  
It would be hilarious if the government actually did move to take away Ted's guns. -- Not everyone's guns, just Ted's.

Well. he certainly sounds like he's mentally ill. THe NRA says mentally ill people shouldn't have guns, so this sounds like an area where Obama and the NRA can agree on something and take away Teddy Boy's guns
 
2013-01-23 02:30:54 PM  
Dear Ted, Please please please please take up arms against the government. OMG please!

Also, drop the axe. You suck.
 
2013-01-23 02:31:01 PM  

KingKauff: olddeegee: Headline is wrong. He could never play guitar. He can be flashy, but any kid in a Guitar Center for the first time can out play this ass.

He's a better guitar player than "hunter". I've only been hunting for a few years and I bet I know more than he does and am a shiatton better than him. I actually hunt animals in the wild.

/ok, I sit in a stand and read/doze off/text friends, but still, I'm better than him


I've never hunted a day in my life and I'm still better than him.
 
2013-01-23 02:31:17 PM  

catchow: Constitutional literalism makes no more sense than biblical literalism.


So, when the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." it doesn't *really* mean "no" law?

If laws are not meant to be taken as written, how the hell do you know what they actually mean?
 
2013-01-23 02:33:53 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Farkage: And no, nuclear weapons are not "arms" by definition.

If handguns and rifles are "small arms", what are "large arms"?


www.t-nation.com
 
2013-01-23 02:36:27 PM  

Corvus: Your not patriots your farking traitors who just because things don't go your way in a democracy you think you should force you beliefs on others through force.


Just exactly WHO is trying to change things because "things aren't going their way" in this democracy? Through "force" (the power of government)?

And your choice of picture is hilariously ironic. You might as well just have typed "PICTUREOFCIVILIANWHOPROVEDTHATGUNSAREN'TEVENNECESSARYTOKILLTHOUSANDS. jpg" on your post.
 
2013-01-23 02:40:42 PM  
LoveAllServeAll

Dear Ted, Please please please please take up arms against the government. OMG please!

Also, drop the axe. You suck.



Well done....spoken like a true know-it-all.
 
2013-01-23 02:43:48 PM  
Non-American here. I only know him from watching that episode of Aqua Teen.

Yeah, he seems pretty much the same as his animated persona.
 
2013-01-23 02:45:47 PM  

karnal: Jake Havechek

karnal: Welcome to the liberal mindset. Doesn't matter if you're a musician, author, sports figure or movie star or whatever....once you are tagged a 'conservative' anything you have ever done before sucks and you are an asshat.

/closed-minded reactionaries and bigots

Say, let's talk about The Dixie Chicks, eh motherfarker?


The Dixie Chicks alienated most of their 'conservative' base when they started their Bush Hate speech...I don't recall anyone coming out and saying "oh yeah....and they can't sing either."



What they did was "hate speech"? Are you farked up in the head?
 
2013-01-23 02:51:18 PM  

texref: catchow: Constitutional literalism makes no more sense than biblical literalism.

So, when the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." it doesn't *really* mean "no" law?

If laws are not meant to be taken as written, how the hell do you know what they actually mean?


Simple. They mean what catchow has decided they mean depending on the topic as well as his personal feelings on the issue.
 
2013-01-23 02:55:44 PM  

karnal: LoveAllServeAll

Dear Ted, Please please please please take up arms against the government. OMG please!

Also, drop the axe. You suck.


Well done....spoken like a true know-it-all.


So having an opinion makes me a know it all? Um...sensitive much?
 
2013-01-23 03:02:06 PM  

Jake Havechek: What they did was "hate speech"? Are you farked up in the head?


Although it was Natalie who spoke up, they all stood up for her. How many people do you have to express hatred for before it becomes "hate-speech"? One single gay man? A group of black people? A gossip of women? Suppose she had said, " and we're ashamed that Conner Barwin is from Texas!" (He's an NFL player who is outspoken in favor of gays, because his brother is gay.)
 
2013-01-23 03:02:12 PM  
Jake Havechek

karnal: Jake Havechek

karnal: Welcome to the liberal mindset. Doesn't matter if you're a musician, author, sports figure or movie star or whatever....once you are tagged a 'conservative' anything you have ever done before sucks and you are an asshat.

/closed-minded reactionaries and bigots

Say, let's talk about The Dixie Chicks, eh motherfarker?


The Dixie Chicks alienated most of their 'conservative' base when they started their Bush Hate speech...I don't recall anyone coming out and saying "oh yeah....and they can't sing either."


What they did was "hate speech"? Are you farked up in the head?



Ok....maybe it wasn't exactly hate speech...but they said some anti-Bush rhetoric that a large group of the fan base did not like. But that is not the point I am trying to make here. My point is that since Ted came out with his nutty conservative crap all the libs come out and say how his guitar playing sucks...which, in truth, it doesn't. They just want to tear him down as much as they can. When the conservatives started in on the Dixie Chicks nothing was said about their music sucking....because it doesn't. Different tactics. Yes....Ted is a nut....No, his guitar playing does not suck.
 
2013-01-23 03:02:37 PM  

SpectroBoy: karnal: Welcome to the liberal mindset. Doesn't matter if you're a musician, author, sports figure or movie star or whatever....once you are tagged a 'conservative' anything you have ever done before sucks and you are an asshat.


No. Really. He is a mediocre guitar player at best.


Agreed. He's more of an entertainer than a good guitarist.
Really.
 
2013-01-23 03:20:54 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Farkage: And no, nuclear weapons are not "arms" by definition.

If handguns and rifles are "small arms", what are "large arms"?


Mortars, artillery, and the guns mounted on aircraft. IMO.
 
Displayed 50 of 469 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report