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.

(Washington Post)   "And so it's come to this: Rand Paul talking all by himself on the Senate floor. It is a very sad statement on the intellectual collapse...of the media, whose first impulse in this administration is to circle the wagons around the White House"   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 337
    More: Sad, Rand Paul, White House, filibusters  
•       •       •

10963 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2013 at 11:49 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-07 01:36:50 PM
Dick Durbin made sure to stay and try and troll the filibuster, with predictable results.  Aligning himself and his party with the American assassination movement is pretty bizarre.
 
2013-03-07 01:37:27 PM

Kahabut: Oh, yes they can. Take a good serious look at "news" in the USA. It's a joke. It's a total and utter joke. There isn't enough FACT in a newspaper to print a single page worth. There aren't ANY facts on TV news.

It's not so different in most countries. But you know something, there is at least one top notch news service in the world. Al Jazzera. Irony, though art a cruel mistress.



There are others as well.
 
2013-03-07 01:38:40 PM

mongbiohazard: Ghastly: My thinking is if it's a mission that is currently acceptable for a police or military helicopter to perform over American soil then why the hell shouldn't that mission be acceptable for a drone other than "OMG! Scary kill-bots hunting us down like Sarah Conner!"


There is actually a difference. The technological advance does open the door to some new problems.

Helicopters are expensive, loud, must be operated only by highly trained professionals and carry the slight inherent increased risk of rotary aircrafts' complexity. Police generally have to be pretty serious when they want to use them.

Drones, on the other hand, bring with them the possibility of changing that landscape significantly. They're potentially much cheaper, operated by anyone, risk no personel when they are used and can be much quiter. Drones have the potential to be used for 24/hour surveilance of people without the necessity of a warrant. Yes, a helicopter can surveil you as well as a drone can..... for a time, and it's easy to notice the helicopter. The drones can potentially loiter for much longer, be far less noticeable, and since they're potentially MUCH cheaper a PD could have a whole fleet of them, so they could watch someone's every move 24/7. Without needing to get a warrant since current law doesn't generally cover their use.


Yep. People should be worried about their 4th amendment rights here. Republicans have a convenient moment to exploit a hypothetical situation, but I haven't seen them address any concern about poor state regulation over UAVs, nor have I seen anything on their part to remove the conditions under which we started employing drones so heavily in the first place.
 
2013-03-07 01:39:13 PM

MyRandomName: St_Francis_P: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I don't think that. I do think it's up to Congress to pass new laws and clarify existing ones, instead of using the opportunity for political grandstanding.

Since when do new laws need to be created to remove unconstitutional action? I would love to hear your scenario that would provide a constitutional acceptable drone attack on an american citizen in the u.s.


An American Citizen hijacks a flight in Boston and is about to crash the plane into a building on purpose.
 
2013-03-07 01:42:17 PM
Out of all the photos, did they really have to pick the one where the guy's doing a blowjob motion?
 
2013-03-07 01:42:33 PM

Lord_Baull: Fantastic! Using your own logic, you've admitted 9/11 was Bush I's fault.


While not agreeing with your analysis at all, I suspect that you meant Clinton (he was the one who hit Al Qaeda with cruise missiles in August of 1998)
 
2013-03-07 01:48:23 PM

MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: I am not going down your rabbit hole of choice. You said Obama, Barack Obama, has decided to kill everyone rather than give them trials because Gitmo wasn't closed.

Defend your statement, but don't try to drag me down some unrelated path. You said something dumb - justify it.

Item 1: Barack Obama campaigned against holding suspected terrorists at GTMO to "uphold our values" of due process.

Item 2: Barack Obama orders/allows the use of drones to kill suspected terrorists without due process

You don't see a contradiction?


qorkfiend: Yes, it's Congress's fault for not revoking that ability and then complaining that the President is doing something they have legally empowered him to do.

So because the president has the authority to do it, it absolves him of any wrong-doing for using that power?


Not having the responsibility OR the power to undo it means that he's not responsible for undoing it.
 
2013-03-07 01:50:04 PM

St_Francis_P: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I don't think that. I do think it's up to Congress to pass new laws and clarify existing ones, instead of using the opportunity for political grandstanding.


We need a new law to determine if it is ok to execute Americans without a trial?
 
2013-03-07 01:52:12 PM
Wasn't expecting much from the Farker crowd, but is nobody even a little bit upset that there was discussion about killing Americans by the American government without involving the due process of the law?  That they decided
"we're cool with this"?

Who am I supposed to be more disappointed in now?  The liberals who have lost the zeal for civil rights or the conservatives who don't just want to shoot them some terrorists?
 
2013-03-07 01:53:05 PM
this was my first thought when I heard douche Paul was going to filibuster...


Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
 
2013-03-07 01:53:05 PM

Nutsac_Jim: St_Francis_P: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I don't think that. I do think it's up to Congress to pass new laws and clarify existing ones, instead of using the opportunity for political grandstanding.

We need a new law to determine if it is ok to execute Americans without a trial?


No law needed apparently.  Those noble OWS people should be assembling any minute now.  Chris Matthews outrage is just moments away......
 
2013-03-07 01:58:20 PM
"Where, for that matter, are the mainstream media and the liberal punditocracy that would be calling for impeachment about now if a Republican president had done all this?"

I'm sorry, how is this equivalent to a band of corporately owned puppets (Cheney and Turd Blossom) lying us into attacking a neutral country for no reason?

Rand Paul is a halfwit.
 
2013-03-07 02:00:27 PM

hitlersbrain: "Where, for that matter, are the mainstream media and the liberal punditocracy that would be calling for impeachment about now if a Republican president had done all this?"

I'm sorry, how is this equivalent to a band of corporately owned puppets (Cheney and Turd Blossom) lying us into attacking a neutral country for no reason?

Rand Paul is a halfwit.


Weapons grade spin-meistering is impressive.
 
2013-03-07 02:01:55 PM

The_Forensicator: No law needed apparently. Those noble OWS people should be assembling any minute now. Chris Matthews outrage is just moments away......


Oh, you mean the people wh the cons marginalized as "lefty looneys" until it was time to start working on those 2016 campaigns in an attmempt to build a facade that you reach out to both sides of the aisle? Yeah, it's weird how the GOP is seen as disingenuous for some reason.

But, I'll bet Rand Paul's different. I'll bet he's a compassionate kinda conservative, the type I could have a beer with.
 
2013-03-07 02:03:34 PM

splohn: Wasn't expecting much from the Farker crowd, but is nobody even a little bit upset that there was discussion about killing Americans by the American government without involving the due process of the law?  That they decided
"we're cool with this"?

Who am I supposed to be more disappointed in now?  The liberals who have lost the zeal for civil rights or the conservatives who don't just want to shoot them some terrorists?


I'm very disappointed. It's like when Sen. Paul's father started talking about this kind of stuff. There were valid points in there, but they're buried beneath so much derp, and the messenger is so flawed, that nothing will come of it. I really don't like the fact we have a gigantic military deployed in 5 geographic commands to "protect" our nation. I don't like that there's little domestic regulation over UAV employment. I don't like that the serious 4th amendment issues with loitering, 24/7, warrantless surveillance aren't being addressed. I am also concerned with Sen. Paul's specific contention, that of UAV usage to kill another American on American soil, but I'm somewhat mollified by Holder's statement that such a thing is very unlikely. Even still, there's not much guidance on it outside Holder's memo.

That's the problem. Legislators need to be answering these questions with better regulation. They're not, and they aren't doing so because they're banking on their guy one day being in charge, and having these powers at his disposal to enact their party's agenda.
 
2013-03-07 02:04:48 PM
pbs.twimg.com
 
2013-03-07 02:04:56 PM

Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.


If GW had done it, you would have supported it, so there's that.
 
2013-03-07 02:04:58 PM

EyeballKid: The_Forensicator: No law needed apparently. Those noble OWS people should be assembling any minute now. Chris Matthews outrage is just moments away......

Oh, you mean the people wh the cons marginalized as "lefty looneys" until it was time to start working on those 2016 campaigns in an attmempt to build a facade that you reach out to both sides of the aisle? Yeah, it's weird how the GOP is seen as disingenuous for some reason.

But, I'll bet Rand Paul's different. I'll bet he's a compassionate kinda conservative, the type I could have a beer with.


I bet you're a hit a parties.
 
2013-03-07 02:06:35 PM

Nutsac_Jim: St_Francis_P: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I don't think that. I do think it's up to Congress to pass new laws and clarify existing ones, instead of using the opportunity for political grandstanding.

We need a new law to determine if it is ok to execute Americans without a trial?


What do you think happens every time a police officer shoots someone?
 
2013-03-07 02:07:56 PM

splohn: Wasn't expecting much from the Farker crowd, but is nobody even a little bit upset that there was discussion about killing Americans by the American government without involving the due process of the law?  That they decided
"we're cool with this"?

Who am I supposed to be more disappointed in now?  The liberals who have lost the zeal for civil rights or the conservatives who don't just want to shoot them some terrorists?


America kills people all the time without due process of law, and in fact the due process of law has led to many, many executions of innocent people. And if the COngress doesn't like it,. they can pass a law against it. Which the President will just violate if he feels like it, same as Reagan did.
 
2013-03-07 02:10:07 PM

qorkfiend: What do you think happens every time a police officer shoots someone?


They get to the bonus level?
 
2013-03-07 02:11:43 PM

splohn: Wasn't expecting much from the Farker crowd, but is nobody even a little bit upset that there was discussion about killing Americans by the American government without involving the due process of the law?  That they decided
"we're cool with this"?

Who am I supposed to be more disappointed in now?  The liberals who have lost the zeal for civil rights or the conservatives who don't just want to shoot them some terrorists?


It's actually old news at this point.  A lot of people were (and still are) upset about the blatantly unconstitutional provisions of the 2012 NDAA, to say nothing of Bush's signing statements et al., but none of that outrage seems to have made any difference.  Nor will it make any difference as long as either major party is willing to put its own interests above the good of the country.
 
2013-03-07 02:12:31 PM

Nutsac_Jim: St_Francis_P: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I don't think that. I do think it's up to Congress to pass new laws and clarify existing ones, instead of using the opportunity for political grandstanding.

We need a new law to determine if it is ok to execute Americans without a trial?


Police and other LEOs have been getting away with this for years, with very few repercussions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_off ic ers_in_the_United_States
 
2013-03-07 02:13:11 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: [pbs.twimg.com image 617x857]


Why kill them? He'll just put them in a FEMA camp for "re-education".
 
2013-03-07 02:15:16 PM

verbaltoxin: theorellior: Lee451: The use of drones by the government on American soil by the Obamanation and his henchmen was the reason for the filibuster. Preventing another Eric Holder-type appointment.

/But he IS the Obama! He's allowed to sell government seats and access!

How do you manage to tie your shoes in the morning without assistance?

Trolls be trollin'.


We must DRIVE those page clicks, Heyahh!! *CRACK*.....HEYAHH!! ..*CRACK*...

www.stagecoachmoving.net

FULL DERP AHEAD...MAN THE DERPEDOES!!!!

www.navy.mil
 
2013-03-07 02:18:37 PM

Maud Dib: verbaltoxin: theorellior: Lee451: The use of drones by the government on American soil by the Obamanation and his henchmen was the reason for the filibuster. Preventing another Eric Holder-type appointment.

/But he IS the Obama! He's allowed to sell government seats and access!

How do you manage to tie your shoes in the morning without assistance?

Trolls be trollin'.

We must DRIVE those page clicks, Heyahh!! *CRACK*.....HEYAHH!! ..*CRACK*...

[www.stagecoachmoving.net image 706x479]

FULL DERP AHEAD...MAN THE DERPEDOES!!!!

[www.navy.mil image 297x192]


Drew needs beer money. It's why they bug you about disabling ad-block, even though it's well-known many Farkers do this from work, and some have restricted privileges over things like ad-block settings.
 
2013-03-07 02:20:58 PM

Rand Paul announces on @cnn he is dropping his opposition to Brennan's nomination.

- Vaughn Sterling/CNN (@vplus) March 7, 2013
 
2013-03-07 02:21:08 PM
The bit about this filibuster that pisses me the hell off is not just that Senate Republicans refuse to confirm Brennan. Hell, it isn't that John "Walnuts" McCain said "We aren't going to confirm him until we know exactly what happened in BENGHAZI!" What pisses me off is that everyone is claiming that the 13-hour filibuster was all done by one Senator from Kentucky.

It wasn't. I counted at least three Senators who took up time in the Senate chamber. Oh sure, Rand Paul (who the hell names their kid that, by the way?) spoke for a while, but he eventually let someone else speak. I'd actually be impressed if he had spoken for thirteen hours without pause, but the fact is that he didn't. And guess who had to pay for it? The American taxpayers--the ones who need the government to provide essential services while that same government collectively says "Yeah, screw that. We're going to stage a media spectacular."

Also, I have heard no mention that any of the few Senators who talked broke out anything interesting, like a recipe for chicken soup. (Rubio spoke, so maybe he could have given his mamita's recipe for tortilla soup--my sister-in-law's grandmother had an awesome one.)

And now I'm hungry.
 
2013-03-07 02:21:43 PM

clambam: Remember how when you were a kid you would narrate your actions like a sports commentator? "Clambam moves in from the outside, he shoots, he scores... touchdown!" (suffice to say I was not athletic). The repubs are the same way. Each one moves around in a self-narrated movie in which evil brown people get mowed down by your righteously wielded concealed carry, where the bad guy looks at you in dawning disbelief and terror as you pronounce "Immunity... revoked!", where the president tearfully pins the Medal of Honor on your blood-stained camos after you single-handedly fight off the Red Menace while Michelle Malkin makes "call me" gestures in the background. For thirteen glorious hours Rand Paul got to pretend he was Jimmy Stewart. The eyes of the nation were upon him, it was a glorious validation of his superior moral fiber and dedication. It accomplished nothing, except to provide him with some video for his next campaign. He delayed John Brennan's confirmation by exactly zero hours. Just when he could have demonstrated his commitment to his principles, he called it quits because he had to pee. He is a hero in his own mind, and those of his followers. Actually accomplishing something is beside the point--he fulfilled the cinematic requirements for heroism, who cares about the actual ones?  Rand Paul is an attention whore.


Well, you just got Farkied.

cl.jroo.me
 
2013-03-07 02:21:45 PM
Blah Blah Blah Drones, Blah Blah Blah 'Murican soil Blah Blah Blah
SWAT Units have had these non aerial drones for a few years now.
Runt Paul your patriotic rhetoric is moot.
img169.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-07 02:22:11 PM

mongbiohazard: Ghastly: My thinking is if it's a mission that is currently acceptable for a police or military helicopter to perform over American soil then why the hell shouldn't that mission be acceptable for a drone other than "OMG! Scary kill-bots hunting us down like Sarah Conner!"


There is actually a difference. The technological advance does open the door to some new problems.

Helicopters are expensive, loud, must be operated only by highly trained professionals and carry the slight inherent increased risk of rotary aircrafts' complexity. Police generally have to be pretty serious when they want to use them.

Drones, on the other hand, bring with them the possibility of changing that landscape significantly. They're potentially much cheaper, operated by anyone, risk no personel when they are used and can be much quiter. Drones have the potential to be used for 24/hour surveilance of people without the necessity of a warrant. Yes, a helicopter can surveil you as well as a drone can..... for a time, and it's easy to notice the helicopter. The drones can potentially loiter for much longer, be far less noticeable, and since they're potentially MUCH cheaper a PD could have a whole fleet of them, so they could watch someone's every move 24/7. Without needing to get a warrant since current law doesn't generally cover their use.


It's kind of like those people that insist spamming email accounts is the EXACT same thing as sending unsolicited mail through USPS.
 
2013-03-07 02:23:13 PM

halfof33: vygramul: You're violating the temporal order.

What was the damage that was caused by this actions?

No I am not. We have already stipulated that: The Benghazi terrorist attack was mounted by Islamist militants in retaliation for attacks on them by JSOC forces. The raids, were ordered by President Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, who was acting outside the command structure.


You don't approve of using JSOC forces to attack Islamic militants? I'm not sure I'm comfortable suggesting that we should wait for orders before firing on known terrorists. I thought that was one of the mistakes of the Clinton era - that we had bin Laden in our sights but didn't fire because the officers did not feel empowered to make that call without consulting higher authorities. Had they killed bin Laden, the world might well be a very different place today, but knowing what we know now, it seems it would have been at minimum forgivable, if not laudable. So how can we apply a different standard here?
 
2013-03-07 02:23:28 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Rand Paul announces on @cnn he is dropping his opposition to Brennan's nomination.- Vaughn Sterling/CNN (@vplus) March 7, 2013


Obama got to him, too.
 
2013-03-07 02:24:48 PM
My question is:

Where the hell is everyone else?

The Obama administration has more or less said that due process is not neccessary and the government can kill US citizens with impunity. This is Obama's "torture memo" - and take a look at our representatives. Literally ONE has been willing to stand up, and only a small handful are willing to support him.

Where is everyone? Why is almost no-one willing to call an unconstitutional power grab what it is? Where are the Democrats to pull the president from their party back in line?

Instead we have everyone falling all over themselves to defend the president's actions - most of them people who would have called it a scandal if it had been done by Bush!
 
2013-03-07 02:26:15 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Rand Paul announces on @cnn he is dropping his opposition to Brennan's nomination.- Vaughn Sterling/CNN (@vplus) March 7, 2013

 
2013-03-07 02:27:54 PM
The state calls its own violence "law," but that of the individual "crime."
 
2013-03-07 02:29:56 PM
Rand Paul deserves the HERO tag.

He was in opposition to a law which allows the USG to attack unarmed civilians via drone with no trial, no arrest, no nothing, simply on the basis that they MIGHT be up to no good.

That would include Moslems, political dissenters, pot growers, just about anyone they don't like.

Politics has nothing to do with it, this administration is totally out of control,
 
2013-03-07 02:30:36 PM

adamatari: Where is everyone? Why is almost no-one willing to call an unconstitutional power grab what it is? Where are the Democrats to pull the president from their party back in line?


img.rp.vhd.me
"FROM YOU, ALRIGHT?! I LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU!!!"

/see, we're at war, and Obama's a "war president"
/if you're not with us, you're against us
/why do you hate our freedoms?
/liberals knew what to expect when impeachment/war crimes prosecution were taken off the table
 
2013-03-07 02:31:06 PM

Phinn: The state calls its own violence "law," but that of the individual "crime."


Think of that one all by your self there chief?
 
2013-03-07 02:32:16 PM

vygramul: So how can we apply a different standard here?


1. You have stipulated that Brennan was operating outside the command structure

2. you have stipulated that the CIA and State department were not apprised of the attacks, and therefore, additional security precautions were not taken in Libya.
 
2013-03-07 02:33:21 PM

GAT_00: You idiot, that's what a filibuster is: someone rambling on by themselves.  And this wasn't even a proper one, he had like a dozen Senators helping him out.


THIS. I agree that we need to limit drone use, publicly, and hell, I'd prefer to get rid of drones altogether (because if you're gonna shoot someone in the head, then the shooter needs to be a real, breathing human being, that isn't a very effective safeguard but it's at least  something), but if you're going to fillibuster, do it right. Break out the phone book and Justin Beiber tweets.
 
2013-03-07 02:34:56 PM

olddinosaur: Rand Paul deserves the HERO tag.

He was in opposition to a law which allows the USG to attack unarmed civilians via drone with no trial, no arrest, no nothing, simply on the basis that they MIGHT be up to no good.

That would include Moslems, political dissenters, pot growers, just about anyone they don't like.

Politics has nothing to do with it, this administration is totally out of control,


Cite one example of drones being used against anyone not suspected of direct involvement with terrorism.

If you want to make a slippery slope/let's get our laws ahead of technology for once instead of being decades behind like now sort of argument, fine. Pissing and moaning and spewing derp everywhere just gums of the conversation and makes you look more inbred than a Targaryen.

So if you wanted to contribute to taking a dump in a politics thread at least you succeeded there.
 
2013-03-07 02:39:42 PM

adamatari: The Obama administration has more or less said that due process is not neccessary and the government can kill US citizens with impunity.


Dumb, deliberately obtuse, troll or crazy?

Anyone wanna make the call here?
 
2013-03-07 02:41:42 PM

Mr_Fabulous: adamatari: The Obama administration has more or less said that due process is not neccessary and the government can kill US citizens with impunity.

Dumb, deliberately obtuse, troll or crazy?

Anyone wanna make the call here?


Being the trailing edge of a green politics thread, it's probably a little bit of everything you named.
 
2013-03-07 02:41:56 PM

Mr_Fabulous: adamatari: The Obama administration has more or less said that due process is not neccessary and the government can kill US citizens with impunity.

Dumb, deliberately obtuse, troll or crazy?

Anyone wanna make the call here?


Deliberately obtuse.
 
2013-03-07 02:42:02 PM
"...the media, whose first impulse in this administration is to circle the wagons around the White House"

Swear to God, it feels like I'm the only one who has a memory longer than 7 years.

i.imgur.com

Hey, did you hear the Dixie Chicks said they're ""not proud" of the President?  BURRRRRN THEM!!!
 
2013-03-07 02:43:20 PM

ChuDogg: mongbiohazard: Ghastly: My thinking is if it's a mission that is currently acceptable for a police or military helicopter to perform over American soil then why the hell shouldn't that mission be acceptable for a drone other than "OMG! Scary kill-bots hunting us down like Sarah Conner!"


There is actually a difference. The technological advance does open the door to some new problems.

Helicopters are expensive, loud, must be operated only by highly trained professionals and carry the slight inherent increased risk of rotary aircrafts' complexity. Police generally have to be pretty serious when they want to use them.

Drones, on the other hand, bring with them the possibility of changing that landscape significantly. They're potentially much cheaper, operated by anyone, risk no personel when they are used and can be much quiter. Drones have the potential to be used for 24/hour surveilance of people without the necessity of a warrant. Yes, a helicopter can surveil you as well as a drone can..... for a time, and it's easy to notice the helicopter. The drones can potentially loiter for much longer, be far less noticeable, and since they're potentially MUCH cheaper a PD could have a whole fleet of them, so they could watch someone's every move 24/7. Without needing to get a warrant since current law doesn't generally cover their use.

It's kind of like those people that insist spamming email accounts is the EXACT same thing as sending unsolicited mail through USPS.


That's actually a pretty good analogy, I think.

The snail mail stuff costs real money... advertisers have to be serious enough about it to spend that money that they will need to expect a return. That limits the amount of it we're all going to get, and so they will want to limit it to the geographic areas they expect to see the most return from.

Email spam, on the other hand, being so ludicrously cheap per message means that they have the incentive to flood as many people randomly with it as possible.

Similarly, the economics of drones means they can be used in ways that helicopters can't and that can lead to very different outcomes and abuses. A big, expensive, risky, machine requiring highly trained pilot and much maintenance vs. a fleet of cheap, comparitively disposable machines with potentially much longer loiter times which can be piloted by pretty much anyone without needing years of training.
 
2013-03-07 02:43:55 PM

Burr: ficklefkrfark: /the (d) and (r) are like two drunks in a bar accusing each other of having a drinking problem.

And then going home and beating their wives who refuse to leave them because if they do, they are afraid that the other drunk will come over and rape them.


Brilliant, both of you.  Partisanship, not drones is the real threat to this country.
 
2013-03-07 02:44:31 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Phinn: The state calls its own violence "law," but that of the individual "crime."

Think of that one all by your self there chief?


Look it up.  Learn something.
 
2013-03-07 02:47:58 PM
Wake me up when someone straps on a leg-bag and goes to work on the, already well documented (and continuing), killing of innocent citizens through the execution of no-knock warrants at the wrong addresses.

Gov. has been able to send a SLCM up my tailpipe for decades...

/flying my `intruders' at the FAA limit of 400 ft.
 
Displayed 50 of 337 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report