Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Feinstein to Cruz:"I'm not a sixth grader. Senator, I've been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I've looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons." OH SNAP   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, Feinstein, Ted Cruz, assault weapons, party-line vote, mayors, committees  
•       •       •

5835 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Mar 2013 at 10:20 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-15 09:25:16 AM  
In the blue corner, we have Sen. Feinstein! Champion of Idiotic Gun Laws and Angry School Marm look-a-like! In the red corner, we have Sen. Cruz! Champion of the Imaginary Constitution that Resides only in His Head! Fighters please keep all shots below the belt and may the best Senatorial Moron win!
 
2013-03-15 09:39:57 AM  
So was that a "yes" or a "no" to a simple "yes" or "no" question?
 
2013-03-15 09:48:15 AM  
I don't think our founding fathers envisioned the entire nation sharing only 2,271 weapons. There are over 300 million people in this country. If there are only that many weapons to share among us, how much time do we get with one.

Is there a sign-up sheet?

/they both come across like asses.
//and yet they are the only winners (Senators make good money, health care and pensions)
///the voters get screwed once again
 
2013-03-15 09:48:59 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: So was that a "yes" or a "no" to a simple "yes" or "no" question?


It's almost like all three branches of government have placed restrictions on certain rights, and there is over 200 years of jurisprudence to prove that fact. Therefore Cruz's moronic question to Feinstein was not a "yes or no" question.
 
2013-03-15 09:49:08 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: So was that a "yes" or a "no" to a simple "yes" or "no" question?


Have you stopped beating your wife?

Simple yes or no question.
 
2013-03-15 09:53:22 AM  

2wolves: Have you stopped beating your wife?

Simple yes or no question.


Ah yes...deflection at it's best. Well done sir! Well done!
 
2013-03-15 09:54:07 AM  
"Let the record show: that you can be a United States senator for 21 years, you can be 79 years old, you can be the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most recognizable and most widely respected veteran public servants in your nation. But if you are female while you are also all of those other things, men who you defeat in arguments will still respond to you by calling you hysterical and telling you to calm down. They will patronize you and say they 'admire your passion, sweetie,' but of course they only deal in facts, not your silly girly strong feelings. It is inescapable, you can set your watch by it." - Rachel Maddow, discussing Senator Ted Cruz's condescending lecture to Senator Dianne Feinstein during a Senate debate on gun control. March 14, 2013.
 
2013-03-15 10:00:02 AM  
Dusk-You-n-Me: Copy and Paste

Or it's just two morons getting into a political show fight over what they think is legal.
 
2013-03-15 10:00:07 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: 2wolves: Have you stopped beating your wife?

Simple yes or no question.

Ah yes...deflection at it's best. Well done sir! Well done!


As an example that clearly invalidated your comment the only thing I deflected was your attempt to validate Me Cruz's inane attack.
 
2013-03-15 10:01:30 AM  
Mr, not Me.

FTFM
 
2013-03-15 10:03:49 AM  

2wolves: Dancin_In_Anson: 2wolves: Have you stopped beating your wife?

Simple yes or no question.

Ah yes...deflection at it's best. Well done sir! Well done!

As an example that clearly invalidated your comment the only thing I deflected was your attempt to validate Me Cruz's inane attack.


No, you only changed the subject. Invalidating the comment would be explaining how it was not a "yes or no" question.
 
2013-03-15 10:04:56 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: So was that a "yes" or a "no" to a simple "yes" or "no" question?


Aw, did our little Tea Party hero get his balls cut off by the mean ole California liberal?
 
2013-03-15 10:06:45 AM  
I'm indifferent to Feinstein but Cruz is farking moron and an embarrassment. So yeah, he's pretty typical of elected Texas Republicans these days
 
2013-03-15 10:06:59 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: So was that a "yes" or a "no" to a simple "yes" or "no" question?


Actually, she did give an answer and the answer was "yes."

I would now also like to quote from District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008):

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O'Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service-M-16 rifles and the like-may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment 's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

Emphasis mine, of course.
 
2013-03-15 10:08:04 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: "Let the record show: that you can be a United States senator for 21 years, you can be 79 years old, you can be the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most recognizable and most widely respected veteran public servants in your nation. But if you are female while you are also all of those other things, men who you defeat in arguments will still respond to you by calling you hysterical and telling you to calm down. They will patronize you and say they 'admire your passion, sweetie,' but of course they only deal in facts, not your silly girly strong feelings. It is inescapable, you can set your watch by it." - Rachel Maddow, discussing Senator Ted Cruz's condescending lecture to Senator Dianne Feinstein during a Senate debate on gun control. March 14, 2013.


Exactly this. I'm sick and tired of men in this country patronizing women who have opinions and are forceful about them. We are just as important as you. You having a penis does not make you better than me because I have a vagina. Feinstein was right to call out that little douchebag who is embarrassing our state (yes, even more than we've already been embarrassed). Well done, Senator Feinstein. Keep up the good work.
 
2013-03-15 10:09:20 AM  

WTF Indeed: Or it's just two morons getting into a political show fight over what they think is legal.


Sure.
 
2013-03-15 10:19:27 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Sure.


Since you are privy to the inner workings of Sen. Cruz's mind, so much so that you're able to deduce his bigotries from what was a political show fight. A fight designed from the very beginning to get out of hand and include yelling add calls to remain calm. Because that's what this was, any interpretation of this event outside of that includes some of the listener's own bias.
 
2013-03-15 10:23:52 AM  
The only thing that keeps Cruz from taking the title of Biggest F*cking Moron in the state of Texas from Rick Perry is that Cruz isn't an idiot, he's just bat-shiat crazy and an asshole.

Rick Perry is bat-shiat crazy, an asshole, AND dumb as a post.
 
2013-03-15 10:26:24 AM  
Ted Cruz isn't stupid but he sure acts the part well.
 
2013-03-15 10:26:50 AM  

WTF Indeed: Since you are privy to the inner workings of Sen. Cruz's mind


I was agreeing with you, not being snarky.
 
2013-03-15 10:27:18 AM  
So would those wounds be different if the round was fired from a bolt action .223 instead of a semi automatic .223 with a pistol grip, bayonet lug and barell shroud?
 
2013-03-15 10:27:46 AM  

WTF Indeed: Dusk-You-n-Me: Sure.

Since you are privy to the inner workings of Sen. Cruz's mind, so much so that you're able to deduce his bigotries from what was a political show fight. A fight designed from the very beginning to get out of hand and include yelling add calls to remain calm. Because that's what this was, any interpretation of this event outside of that includes some of the listener's own bias.


Really? Reciting Constitutional amendments to a senior Senator like she wouldn't know that sort of thing isn't condescending or chauvinist?

Look, I know Feinstein's bill is DOA too, but that doesn't give Sen. Cruz the right to prattle on like a f*cking moron to someone who's been up close and personal with the effects of gun violence.
 
2013-03-15 10:28:10 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: I'm indifferent to Feinstein but Cruz is farking moron and an embarrassment. So yeah, he's pretty typical of elected Texas Republicans these days


Texas Republican?

Canadian Cuban.
 
2013-03-15 10:28:17 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Ah yes...deflection at it's best. Well done sir! Well done!


You asked a question that can serve no useful purpose within the context of this discussion and now you curse other people for ignoring it? Why? What point could you possibly hope to accomplish with such a simplistic and ultimately meaningless question when the only possible outcome is that anybody who doesn't view complex social and political issues will view your own original comment as "deflection"?
 
2013-03-15 10:28:19 AM  

tudorgurl: Exactly this. I'm sick and tired of men in this country patronizing women who have opinions and are forceful about them. We are just as important as you. You having a penis does not make you better than me because I have a vagina. Feinstein was right to call out that little douchebag who is embarrassing our state (yes, even more than we've already been embarrassed). Well done, Senator Feinstein. Keep up the good work.


Well, let me mansplain this to you, sweetie...

/Stopping now before I really step in it.
 
2013-03-15 10:28:36 AM  
In before "She talked about bullets that 'implode' LOL"
 
2013-03-15 10:28:51 AM  
Cruz, a former constitutional law professor, began by reciting portions of the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, and asked Feinstein whether the power of government to restrict certain types of guns would be equally appropriate given those provisions.

First, Second and Fourth?  OK, I'll take a stab.
The right to free speech does not allow you to shout FIRE in a crowded theater.
The right to bear arms does not include owning surface to air missiles.
The right against unreasonable search and seizures does not apply if you are within 100 miles of a border or ocean, if the NYPD deems that walking down a hall in your mother's apartment building to visit her constitutues 'loitering', or if the police see you taking a video of them beating a guy and want to confiscate your phone as 'evidence'.

You'd think a constitutional law professor would realize there's exceptions to every rule.
 
2013-03-15 10:29:09 AM  

Giltric: So would those wounds be different if the round was fired from a bolt action .223 instead of a semi automatic .223 with a pistol grip, bayonet lug and barell shroud?


No, but facts are irrelevant to advocates of arbitrarily banning popular civilian sporting rifles.
 
2013-03-15 10:29:11 AM  

skozlaw: You asked a question that can serve no useful purpose within the context of this discussion and now you curse other people for ignoring it? Why? What point could you possibly hope to accomplish with such a simplistic and ultimately meaningless question when the only possible outcome is that anybody who doesn't view complex social and political issues as simple matters of black and white will view your own original comment as "deflection"?


Grrr.... stupid fingers
 
2013-03-15 10:29:52 AM  
She certainly behaved like a sixth grader.
 
2013-03-15 10:30:26 AM  

tudorgurl: Dusk-You-n-Me: "Let the record show: that you can be a United States senator for 21 years, you can be 79 years old, you can be the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most recognizable and most widely respected veteran public servants in your nation. But if you are female while you are also all of those other things, men who you defeat in arguments will still respond to you by calling you hysterical and telling you to calm down. They will patronize you and say they 'admire your passion, sweetie,' but of course they only deal in facts, not your silly girly strong feelings. It is inescapable, you can set your watch by it." - Rachel Maddow, discussing Senator Ted Cruz's condescending lecture to Senator Dianne Feinstein during a Senate debate on gun control. March 14, 2013.

Exactly this. I'm sick and tired of men in this country patronizing women who have opinions and are forceful about them. We are just as important as you. You having a penis does not make you better than me because I have a vagina. Feinstein was right to call out that little douchebag who is embarrassing our state (yes, even more than we've already been embarrassed). Well done, Senator Feinstein. Keep up the good work.


Settle down sweet cheeks...
 
2013-03-15 10:30:38 AM  

skozlaw: Dancin_In_Anson: Ah yes...deflection at it's best. Well done sir! Well done!

You asked a question that can serve no useful purpose within the context of this discussion and now you curse other people for ignoring it? Why? What point could you possibly hope to accomplish with such a simplistic and ultimately meaningless question when the only possible outcome is that anybody who doesn't view complex social and political issues will view your own original comment as "deflection"?


He lives off government subsidies. By his own philosophy that makes him inefficient, bloated and pointless. What do you expect?
 
2013-03-15 10:30:39 AM  
FWIW, Dan White shot Moscone and Milk with his police-issued service revolver.
 
2013-03-15 10:30:53 AM  

Giltric: So would those wounds be different if the round was fired from a bolt action .223 instead of a semi automatic .223 with a pistol grip, bayonet lug and barell shroud?


Wounds from the bolt action rifle are fewer in number during the same time interval. And thus "different".

Sometimes fewer is better.
 
2013-03-15 10:31:46 AM  

2wolves: Dancin_In_Anson: So was that a "yes" or a "no" to a simple "yes" or "no" question?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Simple yes or no question.


Yes but only when my arm gets tired.
 
2013-03-15 10:32:38 AM  
.

Dancin_In_Anson: So was that a "yes" or a "no" to a simple "yes" or "no" question?


The answer is obviously yes, even Scalia accepts that.

It's going to happen eventually, and it's going to be hilarious.
 
2013-03-15 10:32:39 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: 2wolves: Have you stopped beating your wife?

Simple yes or no question.

Ah yes...deflection at it's best. Well done sir! Well done!


I read that as a pithy way of pointing out that Cruz was employing the logical fallacy known as "Begging the Question".
 
2013-03-15 10:32:47 AM  

SkinnyHead: She certainly behaved like a sixth grader.


So ... too advanced for you?
 
2013-03-15 10:33:02 AM  

Karac: Cruz, a former constitutional law professor, began by reciting portions of the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, and asked Feinstein whether the power of government to restrict certain types of guns would be equally appropriate given those provisions.

First, Second and Fourth?  OK, I'll take a stab.
The right to free speech does not allow you to shout FIRE in a crowded theater.
The right to bear arms does not include owning surface to air missiles.
The right against unreasonable search and seizures does not apply if you are within 100 miles of a border or ocean, if the NYPD deems that walking down a hall in your mother's apartment building to visit her constitutues 'loitering', or if the police see you taking a video of them beating a guy and want to confiscate your phone as 'evidence'.

You'd think a constitutional law professor would realize there's exceptions to every rule.


It's not even that. It's that this f*ckstick felt he needed to mansplain to another Senator the Bill of Rights. And he probably feels proud of himself for doing so. When you get elected to the US Senate, you aren't there to debate high school civics. You're there to debate legislation.

It's become this feel-good thing for supposed "Constitutionalists" to think that by reciting the Constitution like it's Quranic verse, you've somehow won the argument. You haven't. You didn't do sh*t. The Constitution needs to be interpreted and applied through the courts and laws. If you can't understand that basic principle, why the f*ck are you a US Senator?
 
2013-03-15 10:33:15 AM  
Keep bringing the lulz, Cruz. Every day, in every way.
 
2013-03-15 10:33:40 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: "Let the record show: that you can be a United States senator for 21 years, you can be 79 years old, you can be the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most recognizable and most widely respected veteran public servants in your nation. But if you are female while you are also all of those other things, men who you defeat in arguments will still respond to you by calling you hysterical and telling you to calm down. They will patronize you and say they 'admire your passion, sweetie,' but of course they only deal in facts, not your silly girly strong feelings. It is inescapable, you can set your watch by it." - Rachel Maddow, discussing Senator Ted Cruz's condescending lecture to Senator Dianne Feinstein during a Senate debate on gun control. March 14, 2013.


I couldn't believe that's where Rachel Maddow took that exchange last night. It had nothing to do with Feinstein being a woman and everything to do with Cruz being an idiot. To interpret Cruz's motives as sexism says a lot more about Maddow than it does about Cruz, in my opinion.

Dancin_In_Anson: So was that a "yes" or a "no" to a simple "yes" or "no" question?


I liked the response of "we can say that it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but not to stop you from having a firearm in a crowded theater"

Or, since that wasn't a yes or no response: YES. there are limits to constitutional rights.
 
2013-03-15 10:33:56 AM  

WTF Indeed: Dusk-You-n-Me: Sure.

Since you are privy to the inner workings of Sen. Cruz's mind, so much so that you're able to deduce his bigotries from what was a political show fight. A fight designed from the very beginning to get out of hand and include yelling add calls to remain calm. Because that's what this was, any interpretation of this event outside of that includes some of the listener's own bias.


It's easy to read the thoughts of the simple-minded.
 
2013-03-15 10:34:52 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me:I was agreeing with you, not being snarky.

Then why post a comment you don't agree with? A comment obviously meant to deflect from Cruz's argument, as weak as it is.

verbaltoxin: Really? Reciting Constitutional amendments to a senior Senator like she wouldn't know that sort of thing isn't condescending or chauvinist?


Senators and Representatives do that kind of stuff all the time to everyone.  When have a political show fight you take it down to the lowest common denominator. Go back and look at the Benghazi hearings and see how condescending eveyone was to each other.
 
2013-03-15 10:34:55 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: So was that a "yes" or a "no" to a simple "yes" or "no" question?


"I'm in favor of easy access to assault weapons that are routinely used to kill grade school children, yes or no?"
 
2013-03-15 10:34:59 AM  

max_pooper: tudorgurl: Dusk-You-n-Me: "Let the record show: that you can be a United States senator for 21 years, you can be 79 years old, you can be the Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most recognizable and most widely respected veteran public servants in your nation. But if you are female while you are also all of those other things, men who you defeat in arguments will still respond to you by calling you hysterical and telling you to calm down. They will patronize you and say they 'admire your passion, sweetie,' but of course they only deal in facts, not your silly girly strong feelings. It is inescapable, you can set your watch by it." - Rachel Maddow, discussing Senator Ted Cruz's condescending lecture to Senator Dianne Feinstein during a Senate debate on gun control. March 14, 2013.

Exactly this. I'm sick and tired of men in this country patronizing women who have opinions and are forceful about them. We are just as important as you. You having a penis does not make you better than me because I have a vagina. Feinstein was right to call out that little douchebag who is embarrassing our state (yes, even more than we've already been embarrassed). Well done, Senator Feinstein. Keep up the good work.

Settle down sweet cheeks sugartits...


FTFY

/ducks and runs
 
2013-03-15 10:35:01 AM  
Look sugar tits, you can speak up when we start planning the next bake sale
 
2013-03-15 10:35:35 AM  

nmrsnr: I liked the response of "we can say that it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but not to stop you from having a firearm in a crowded theater"


It's because guns, not words, are God's chosen tools to work amongst the faithful.
 
2013-03-15 10:35:47 AM  

Mentat: Dancin_In_Anson: So was that a "yes" or a "no" to a simple "yes" or "no" question?

Aw, did our little Tea Party hero get his balls cut off by the mean ole California liberal?


Not cut off, but kicked square in them
 
2013-03-15 10:36:01 AM  

nobodyUwannaknow: Giltric: So would those wounds be different if the round was fired from a bolt action .223 instead of a semi automatic .223 with a pistol grip, bayonet lug and barell shroud?

Wounds from the bolt action rifle are fewer in number during the same time interval. And thus "different".

Sometimes fewer is better.


Have you ever heard someone claim that they wished they had less bullets after they shot someone who broke into their home or attempted to rape them?

If the logic is to get the mass shooter to reload more often giving people a chance to tackle and attempt to subdue them wouldn't you also be giving a pair of intruders the same odds of rushing you while their victim reloads their firearm?
 
2013-03-15 10:36:28 AM  

Giltric: So would those wounds be different if the round was fired from a bolt action .223 instead of a semi automatic .223 with a pistol grip, bayonet lug and barell shroud?


Lanza wouldn't have gotten off 151 shots in less than 5 minutes, so I'd say yes.
 
Displayed 50 of 417 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report