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.

(The Atlantic Wire)   In a rare moment of bi-partisan consensus, almost all Senators on both sides of the aisle in the US Senate have come to the same conclusion: freshman Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is a huge dick   (theatlanticwire.com) divider line 270
    More: Amusing, senator, freshman, alternate ending  
•       •       •

8571 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2013 at 1:10 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-20 04:19:55 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: DROxINxTHExWIND: How many different directions are you going to pull this debate in? For the record, I never said that he wasn't a dick or that his ideas don't suck. I said the reasoning behind the butthurt is bullshiat. "Shut up N00B" is ok for the internet. Its not how Congress should work. Frankly, I'm surprised that you all are this beholden to some ridiculous code that would make it more difficult for a representative to have an impact.

You said, and I quote:
"There's nothing about him being disrespectful to anyone. "



Huh? How does that contradict my point? In the article it does not say that he was being disrespectful to his Republican colleagues who are biatching about his approach. That is my point. Not sure what you're trying to say.
 
2013-03-20 04:21:27 PM  

dericwater: xaldin: dericwater: randomjsa: IE, he destroyed the liberal position on guns with a single question and made Feinstein look like a fool, so now you hate him.

There is nothing that quite so much angers a liberal than the knowledge that they've been proven wrong.

Correction: Nothing angers a liberal more than having to reiterate a truth to some idiot blabbering on with some inane falsehood.

Issues where the idiot (i.e., GOP) are wrong on:
* Evolution
* "Legitimate rape"
* The cost and constitutionality of Obamacare
* Tricke-down economics
* Defense spending
* Climate change
* Oil subsidies
* Social Security
* Education reform
* H1-B visa reform
* Immigration reform
* Abortion and family planning
* Voter Rights
* Civil Rights
* Stem Cell research
* Most NSF-granted research
* Science in general
* Technology in general
* Economic systems in general
* Medicine and health in general
* Gun control

Each and every one of these issues -- and more, the GOP have been on the wrong side and continue to make statements and stake positions that are patently wrong, unworkable, defeating, hypocritical, self-inconsistent, unfeasible, deliberately so in some cases; and continue to keep pushing those stupid points. That's what liberals are angered at.

Interesting list. I don't think a number of the line items could be considered proven fact that only one side could possibly be right (thus there being a right or wrong side). It's a tad arrogant to unilaterally declare a different view on a topic as being the wrong side.  Now on topics that can be factually and methodically proven sure (the rather inane myths about rape/abortion that the GOP fields for instance) but several of those do not have such clear and concise facts to prove them. In fact a number of those are such complicated issues that there may not be a single right answer and neither party might be right due to the number of variables.

Well, I listed them. Please indicate which ones are still in the grey area. I do agree ...


Well I would say:
Cost of Obamacare (constitutionality the supreme court answered, though reading their arguments really meant they stretched to do it. I'm not sure it'd get the pass if revisited in the future) I'd say is still out and we may honestly never really know how much it truly costs due to opportunity costs and the way government barely tracks costs properly.

Oil subsidies could be argued as cutting (or increasing) them could have unintended side effects. They've been in place just so long that the entire system functions around them.

Social Security has always been a problem, in part because the government raided the funds leaving paper IOUs and in part because of the demographics.

Education reform is always contentious because nobody is honestly sure exactly what works. I don't think there is such a thing as right answer for it.

Immigration reform. Sure the system needs to be changed. I don't think there is a correct answer on how to this either. Too many variables in play for it. Plus you add the whole morality aspect. For instance most wouldn't go for my solution of just summary execution for anyone crossing the border without papers. Something about seeing babies lined up and shot upsets people. I don't see the problem. That said just tossing the borders open presents its own costs that have to be born.

Voter rights is a broad and vague topic. It too has many side effects of minor tweaks to it. I think GOP is overly aggressive but the Democrats tend to be the under-aggressive towards checks and balances to it.

NSF granted research. I like science and the things it produces. I'm not entirely convinced that program is run very well. I think the political aspects have crept in from both sides of the aisle and compromised it's original goals.

Economic systems. There isn't one that works fully. To date every one has had unintended side effects or means of abuse. I'm not sure you can have a system that doesn't. Sometimes lowering taxes works, other times it doesn't. Sometimes levies work, other times they don't. Flat taxes might work from a financial perspective but what are the social costs. Do social costs even matter? Why should they be considered, what is the cost of ignoring them.

Medicine and health. Again super broad category. Ideals are everyone taken care of but is that even possible? What cost is there to trying. Should it be tried? I think there's room for differing opinions here.

Gun control. I'm not really opposed to well designed control. I'm opposed to outright bans or things that simply don't have any measurable effect.  Nobody knows how many clips I have or when I bought them. Far as Colorado would know with it's 'over 15' ban I always had 1000 50 round clips in my house. I can always buy them then say I've always had them. Nothing in what they signed will prevent that or even be trackable. Friend in another state buys them, ships them to me. Heck now I could just print the darn things. Bans and limits might have worked 200 years ago. Maybe. Now, I don't see it as a horse that is going back in the barn. Look for other answers.

Both parties tend to be fail for alternative answers. It's either do nothing or an extreme position. On complicated topics with many moving parts that pretty much assures both that there is no true right or wrong answer but that anything done will just be flailing around blindly believing they know the 'One Truth to rule them all'.
 
2013-03-20 04:21:51 PM  

Giltric: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: He laid the smack down on Feinstein, we get it, democrats are butthurt and grasping at straws in outrage.

This is hilarious.  I think Feinstein goes too far, but this "he made her look like a fool" shiat is ridiculous.

Hi, I've been in the Senate for like five whole weeks...so I'mma lecture a long-time Senator on the Constitution.

He look rude, childish, and downright stupid.  But that appears to be what teabaggers like.


Palin / Bachmann
2016!!

All Feinstein did was deflect......derp derp BAZOOKA!!!!! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM!!!!! I'VE BEEN HERE FOR DECADES, HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!

Cruz worked on the Heller case...Feinstein holds her finger on the trigger of weapons pointed at crowds during speeches about how unsafe guns are.

Advantage Cruz.


If you say so.

I say "keep up the good work, Teddy!"

The more he acts like an ass, the less influence he will have, which is fine by me.
 
2013-03-20 04:24:54 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: He laid the smack down on Feinstein, we get it, democrats are butthurt and grasping at straws in outrage.

This is hilarious.  I think Feinstein goes too far, but this "he made her look like a fool" shiat is ridiculous.

Hi, I've been in the Senate for like five whole weeks...so I'mma lecture a long-time Senator on the Constitution.

He look rude, childish, and downright stupid.  But that appears to be what teabaggers like.


Palin / Bachmann
2016!!

All Feinstein did was deflect......derp derp BAZOOKA!!!!! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM!!!!! I'VE BEEN HERE FOR DECADES, HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!

Cruz worked on the Heller case...Feinstein holds her finger on the trigger of weapons pointed at crowds during speeches about how unsafe guns are.

Advantage Cruz.

If you say so.

I say "keep up the good work, Teddy!"

The more he acts like an ass, the less influence he will have, which is fine by me.


I'm more fond of people who speak their mind and take principled stands than people who are more interested in popularity contests

Christie/Cruz 2016
 
2013-03-20 04:25:27 PM  

The Name: moanerific: We have created amendments that take the power of other ones yes. But you don't just start nullifying the Bill of Rights! Once you get rid of one, who gives a shiat about the rest of the BoR?

Um, there is literally no legal distinction between the first ten amendments and all the other amendments, except that we have a religio-nationalist mythology built up around the former that makes us see them as absolutes bestowed on us from the very hand of God himself.


So you be fine with lawmakers who wanted to scrap entire amendments because they don't like them?

Religion, speech, search/seizure, incriminating yourself?

There probably plenty of repubs that would love to outlaw other religions, i dont want people like that running things either.
 
2013-03-20 04:27:17 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Satanic_Hamster: DROxINxTHExWIND: How many different directions are you going to pull this debate in? For the record, I never said that he wasn't a dick or that his ideas don't suck. I said the reasoning behind the butthurt is bullshiat. "Shut up N00B" is ok for the internet. Its not how Congress should work. Frankly, I'm surprised that you all are this beholden to some ridiculous code that would make it more difficult for a representative to have an impact.

You said, and I quote:
"There's nothing about him being disrespectful to anyone. "


Huh? How does that contradict my point? In the article it does not say that he was being disrespectful to his Republican colleagues who are biatching about his approach. That is my point. Not sure what you're trying to say.


I'm pretty sure those GOP colleagues were reacting to his rudeness to Feinstein.

But I'm also pretty sure you knew that and are just trolling at this point.
 
2013-03-20 04:29:42 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Shostie: Lionel Mandrake: Shostie: GAT_00: Yeah, but Cruz wasn't the underdog.

Against Dewhurst he was. Once again, if it weren't for the gerrymandering, Cruz would have been knocked out in the primary.

How do you gerrymander a state?

Huh?

I guess I'm missing something...Cruz is a Senator, which is a statewide position, so I don't get how gerrymandering applies.



The gerrymander was not for the senate seat, but was part of a plan (along with voter ID law and other things) to cut down on minority HOUSE seats. The DOJ and others got an injunction and that delayed the primaries for everything including the Senate race. That allowed the Palinites and others to coalesce around Cruz over Dewhurst.
 
2013-03-20 04:30:14 PM  

Giltric: I'm more fond of people who speak their mind and take principled stands than people who are more interested in popularity contests


Politics is a popularity contest, but, OK.  Good luck with that.  I'm super-OK with Teddy being all talk and no accomplishment.
 
2013-03-20 04:31:30 PM  

moanerific: So you be fine with lawmakers who wanted to scrap entire amendments because they don't like them?


Yeah, I would, because we have a constitution preventing them from doing that.  I'm sure there are tons of things each of us would like to see done that wouldn't pass constitutional muster as determined by your average sixth-grader -but that's why we have a constitution to begin with.
 
2013-03-20 04:32:18 PM  

moanerific: So you be fine with lawmakers who wanted to scrap entire amendments because they don't like them?


Which is why we require a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate.  One lawmaker doesn't make a difference.
 
2013-03-20 04:33:32 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: He laid the smack down on Feinstein, we get it, democrats are butthurt and grasping at straws in outrage.

This is hilarious.  I think Feinstein goes too far, but this "he made her look like a fool" shiat is ridiculous.

Hi, I've been in the Senate for like five whole weeks...so I'mma lecture a long-time Senator on the Constitution.

He look rude, childish, and downright stupid.  But that appears to be what teabaggers like.


Palin / Bachmann
2016!!


He's a constitutional scholar who's argued before the supreme court and won, she's a career politician w/ nothing more than a BS in History and a lot of $$$ in the bank to keep getting reelected.

Cruz isn't Bachmann or Palin, under estimating him or trying to belittle his intelligence is a very bad thing (he's still an ass though).  Feinsteins on the other hand is simply thinks sitting in the same chair long enough gets her +10 intelligence bonus and lets her freely throw tantrums.
 
2013-03-20 04:43:40 PM  

ShadowKamui: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: He laid the smack down on Feinstein, we get it, democrats are butthurt and grasping at straws in outrage.

This is hilarious.  I think Feinstein goes too far, but this "he made her look like a fool" shiat is ridiculous.

Hi, I've been in the Senate for like five whole weeks...so I'mma lecture a long-time Senator on the Constitution.

He look rude, childish, and downright stupid.  But that appears to be what teabaggers like.


Palin / Bachmann
2016!!

He's a constitutional scholar who's argued before the supreme court and won, she's a career politician w/ nothing more than a BS in History and a lot of $$$ in the bank to keep getting reelected.

Cruz isn't Bachmann or Palin, under estimating him or trying to belittle his intelligence is a very bad thing (he's still an ass though).  Feinsteins on the other hand is simply thinks sitting in the same chair long enough gets her +10 intelligence bonus and lets her freely throw tantrums.


I never said he was dumb.  But he is tactless.  His actions are only taking away from his potential influence.  Which is good.  So, keep it up, Teddy Teabag!
 
2013-03-20 04:45:46 PM  

ShadowKamui: He's a constitutional scholar


He should start acting like it.
 
2013-03-20 04:47:24 PM  

The Name: DROxINxTHExWIND: Satanic_Hamster: DROxINxTHExWIND: How many different directions are you going to pull this debate in? For the record, I never said that he wasn't a dick or that his ideas don't suck. I said the reasoning behind the butthurt is bullshiat. "Shut up N00B" is ok for the internet. Its not how Congress should work. Frankly, I'm surprised that you all are this beholden to some ridiculous code that would make it more difficult for a representative to have an impact.

You said, and I quote:
"There's nothing about him being disrespectful to anyone. "


Huh? How does that contradict my point? In the article it does not say that he was being disrespectful to his Republican colleagues who are biatching about his approach. That is my point. Not sure what you're trying to say.

I'm pretty sure those GOP colleagues were reacting to his rudeness to Feinstein.

But I'm also pretty sure you knew that and are just trolling at this point.


Smh. Come on with that arrogant bullshiat. I'm a troll because I won't bend to your illogical point? Just say you disagree.

/Suddenly, Republicans are white-knighting farking FEINSTEIN? Yeah, ok.
 
2013-03-20 04:52:47 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Republicans are white-knighting farking FEINSTEIN? Yeah, ok.


Well, yeah, you got me on that one.  I'm sure they weren't reacting to THAT rudeness in particular, but it sounds like there's been plenty going around from Cruz.

But you're the one who initially tried to imply that he wasn't being rude to anyone, and then moved the goalpost to say that he wasn't being rude to Republican colleagues in particular, so I dunno what the hell you want, man.
 
2013-03-20 04:55:29 PM  

xaldin: Well I would say:


Cost of Obamacare (constitutionality the supreme court answered, though reading their arguments really meant they stretched to do it. I'm not sure it'd get the pass if revisited in the future) I'd say is still out and we may honestly never really know how much it truly costs due to opportunity costs and the way government barely tracks costs properly.

Obamacare was created (by the Heritage Foundation) as a way to still use a free market approach AND save money. That it does both is not in contention. What is in contention is whether a less free market approach could save even more money (such as universal health or single-payer). The $716 billion that the GOP uses either to add into the budget as a costs savings or as a political hammer to hit Obama by claiming that that amount is being taken away from medicare/medicaid is real and not in dispute. The dispute is whether we could save even more using a less free market approach.

Oil subsidies could be argued as cutting (or increasing) them could have unintended side effects. They've been in place just so long that the entire system functions around them.

The only people who can make this claim are in the oil business. fark'em. There are no unintended side effects because side effects are always the uncertainty of the future, and we can always make new solutions to new problems. It has never stopped us before.

Social Security has always been a problem, in part because the government raided the funds leaving paper IOUs and in part because of the demographics.

Social Security as a concept is not a problem. Social security as a physical means of holding money for seniors is not a problem. It's existence and liquidity and ability to pay out are not problems. Tweaking with the amount to pay out or the amount to collect are what the government should do. But the GOP is doing all it can to gut it by not collecting and trying to add burden to the system (much like requiring a 75 year retirement plan funding for the US Postal Service... a deliberate attempt to kill the system). Bottom line Social Security works. People shouldn't rely on it as their sole retirement income, but some do and live all right with it. But it works as intended.

Education reform is always contentious because nobody is honestly sure exactly what works. I don't think there is such a thing as right answer for it.

I have to agree with you here. But we clearly know that the GOP's idea of Education reform is beyond ludicrous. Rewriting history so that Nixon is painted in better light; to show that FDR was wrong; to show that the Vietnam War was right; to exclude noncontroversial science topics in science (evolution?); to require religion in classes... that's the education reform that the GOP wants to offer. The rest of the country is wondering whether a <20 students per class is effective, or could we stretch it to 25, whether a Montessori method of teaching is better than other teaching method, or whether a "back to basic" is what's needed. The GOP isn't even in the same league of educational discussion.

Immigration reform. Sure the system needs to be changed. I don't think there is a correct answer on how to this either. Too many variables in play for it. Plus you add the whole morality aspect. For instance most wouldn't go for my solution of just summary execution for anyone crossing the border without papers. Something about seeing babies lined up and shot upsets people. I don't see the problem. That said just tossing the borders open presents its own costs that have to be born.

Except that there are people on the right who are advocating for pretty much what you're saying is beyond the fringe. I don't hear anyone on the left or center suggesting that we have active people with guns policing the borders and shoot on sight.

Voter rights is a broad and vague topic. It too has many side effects of minor tweaks to it. I think GOP is overly aggressive but the Democrats tend to be the under-aggressive towards checks and balances to it.

The GOP has done whatever it can to make voting rights inconsequential. They're adding needless paperwork and obstacles to prevent people from voting. This past 2012 election showed how a 1st world country has to force its people to stand hours in line to vote. All done in red states to people in blue districts in those red states. You have GOP secretaries of state who openly claimed that the new legislation will help secure the state for Romney.

NSF granted research. I like science and the things it produces. I'm not entirely convinced that program is run very well. I think the political aspects have crept in from both sides of the aisle and compromised it's original goals.

You don't know jack about what they do because you're not doing it on a daily basis. NSF grant research has a much high rate of success in producing valuable and useful items than almost any VC or angel funding program in the country. Politics only gets in when you have GOP administrations trying to carve some piece of that pie for themselves or their cronies. Otherwise, it's rather apolitical.

Economic systems. There isn't one that works fully. To date every one has had unintended side effects or means of abuse. I'm not sure you can have a system that doesn't. Sometimes lowering taxes works, other times it doesn't. Sometimes levies work, other times they don't. Flat taxes might work from a financial perspective but what are the social costs. Do social costs even matter? Why should they be considered, what is the cost of ignoring them.

Why don't you look at other countries and other economic systems from the past and learn from them? There are plenty of very successful countries now and see what they're doing. There's no need to be totally hypothetical about it.

Medicine and health. Again super broad category. Ideals are everyone taken care of but is that even possible? What cost is there to trying. Should it be tried? I think there's room for differing opinions here.

I would basically lump this as part of the over all Obamacare or health care issue. Obamacare was a compromise. The real solution is clear. Of the 186+ countries in the world, almost all use some sort of socialized medicine program, whether it's single payer or universal health and many of them yield much better results than us. And if you were to measure results per dollar spent, then the US is dead last. There should be no thinking involved: look over there and say, "let's do what they're doing". Any rational person would do that. But no, the GOP has to go with this stupid "American Exceptionalism" idea and force us to take a unique solution that is a hack.

Gun control. I'm not really opposed to well designed control. I'm opposed to outright bans or things that simply don't have any measurable effect.  Nobody knows how many clips I have or when I bought them. Far as Colorado would know with it's 'over 15' ban I always had 1000 50 round clips in my house. I can always buy them then say I've always had them. Nothing in what they signed will prevent that or even be trackable. Friend in another state buys them, ships them to me. Heck now I could just print the darn things. Bans and limits might have worked 200 years ago. Maybe. Now, I don't see it as a horse that is going back in the barn. Look for other answers.

The AWB had measurable effect. We saw what happened after it was passed and what happend after its passage expired in 2004. Allowing the CDC to do the study would help gather more and better data to help give better policy and legislation. But the GOP stopped that. They rather be ignorant and have people dead than understand the causes and propose solutions. No answer will be permanent. That's why we have a living government. We don't write laws (like the farking bible) and expect that to explain everything for eternity. When new problems crop up, we propose new solutions. When printable guns come into being, we'll deal with them then. Just because the possibility of printable guns in the near future doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with the problems of the present. People SHOULD know how many clips you have. People with exception amount of weapons and ammo are a danger to society and should be monitored. Don't want to be monitored? Don't have them.

Both parties tend to be fail for alternative answers. It's either do nothing or an extreme position. On complicated topics with many moving parts that pretty much assures both that there is no true right or wrong answer but that anything done will just be flailing around blindly believing they know the 'One Truth to rule them all'.

No, both parties are not "nothing or extreme positions", only one party is. Deliberately writing legislation to make things fail is an extreme position. Only one party does that: the GOP. Only one party is wiling to write legislation or execute in ways that are inherently wrong, inept and in many cases, intentionally bad. That's the GOP.
 
2013-03-20 04:56:07 PM  
In his defense, he is a member of homo neandertalis.
 
2013-03-20 05:04:15 PM  

The Name: But you're the one who initially tried to imply that he wasn't being rude to anyone, and then moved the goalpost to say that he wasn't being rude to Republican colleagues in particular, so I dunno what the hell you want, man.


Maybe Cruz is going to reward him with sweet sweet man love if he white knights him enough on the internets.
 
2013-03-20 05:04:40 PM  
 
2013-03-20 05:25:18 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: The Name: But you're the one who initially tried to imply that he wasn't being rude to anyone, and then moved the goalpost to say that he wasn't being rude to Republican colleagues in particular, so I dunno what the hell you want, man.

Maybe Cruz is going to reward him with sweet sweet man love if he white knights him enough on the internets.


Smh. I pray that Fark really is the gaggle of freckle-faced man-boys that I imagine it to be because if you all are adults, I weep for the country. "You disagree with me so you're gay". Yeah, nice job.
 
2013-03-20 05:26:30 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Satanic_Hamster: The Name: But you're the one who initially tried to imply that he wasn't being rude to anyone, and then moved the goalpost to say that he wasn't being rude to Republican colleagues in particular, so I dunno what the hell you want, man.

Maybe Cruz is going to reward him with sweet sweet man love if he white knights him enough on the internets.

Smh. I pray that Fark really is the gaggle of freckle-faced man-boys that I imagine it to be because if you all are adults, I weep for the country. "You disagree with me so you're gay". Yeah, nice job.


Well, you're a poopy-head too.
 
2013-03-20 05:27:02 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: I'm more fond of people who speak their mind and take principled stands than people who are more interested in popularity contests

Politics is a popularity contest, but, OK.  Good luck with that.  I'm super-OK with Teddy being all talk and no accomplishment.


Of course it is. Thats how C students who run companies into the ground get elected, thats how constitutional scholars who continue if not expand unconstitutional programs get elected etc...and in both cases...twice.
 
2013-03-20 05:27:23 PM  

Elzar: One Senator decides to take on the establishment and suddenly all you libby libs are for protecting the good ole boys club... As a master of rebuttal, Senator Cruz has much more in common with Mr. Smith then any of you pinkos will ever know.


Oh my lord, you're PRECIOUS!
 
2013-03-20 05:30:35 PM  

randomjsa: IE, he destroyed the liberal position on guns with a single question and made Feinstein look like a fool, so now you hate him.

There is nothing that quite so much angers a liberal than the knowledge that they've been proven wrong.


Oh, bless your sweet little heart!
 
2013-03-20 05:32:13 PM  

dericwater: The AWB had measurable effect. We saw what happened after it was passed and what happend after its passage expired in 2004. Allowing the CDC to do the study would help gather more and better data to help give better policy and legislation. But the GOP stopped that. They rather be ignorant and have people dead than understand the causes and propose solutions. No answer will be permanent. That's why we have a living government. We don't write laws (like the farking bible) and expect that to explain everything for eternity. When new problems crop up, we propose new solutions. When printable guns come into being, we'll deal with them then. Just because the possibility of printable guns in the near future doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with the problems of the present. People SHOULD know how many clips you have. People with exception amount of weapons and ammo are a danger to society and should be monitored. Don't want to be monitored? Don't have them.


Cite on the measurable part regarding the AWB?

How many spree killers or murderers who have used a firearm to kill have had an exceptional amount of weapons targetted under the proposed or expired AWBs?

Don't want a trans vaginal ultrasound?....don't get an abortion....good analogy or no? If not why?
 
2013-03-20 05:49:37 PM  

Giltric: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: I'm more fond of people who speak their mind and take principled stands than people who are more interested in popularity contests

Politics is a popularity contest, but, OK.  Good luck with that.  I'm super-OK with Teddy being all talk and no accomplishment.

Of course it is. Thats how C students who run companies into the ground get elected, thats how constitutional scholars who continue if not expand unconstitutional programs get elected etc...and in both cases...twice.


Oh, now you know better than SCOTUS?

Quite an ego you've got there.
 
2013-03-20 05:49:48 PM  

Giltric: How many spree killers or murderers who have used a firearm to kill have had an exceptional amount of weapons targetted under the proposed or expired AWBs?


I think you just made a good argument for a much more expansive AWB, perhaps even a handgun ban.
 
2013-03-20 05:50:13 PM  

dericwater: Obamacare was created (by the Heritage Foundation) as a way to still use a free market approach AND save money.


Can someone in the class tell us what's wrong with this sentence?
 
2013-03-20 05:55:09 PM  

The Name: Giltric: How many spree killers or murderers who have used a firearm to kill have had an exceptional amount of weapons targetted under the proposed or expired AWBs?

I think you just made a good argument for a much more expansive AWB, perhaps even a handgun ban.


They pulled the one targetting firearms that have killed children,  things that go u,p and safety items that keep people from burning their hands on the barrel due to lack of votes.

Do you think one that includes shotguns and handguns will pass?
 
2013-03-20 05:58:48 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: I'm more fond of people who speak their mind and take principled stands than people who are more interested in popularity contests

Politics is a popularity contest, but, OK.  Good luck with that.  I'm super-OK with Teddy being all talk and no accomplishment.

Of course it is. Thats how C students who run companies into the ground get elected, thats how constitutional scholars who continue if not expand unconstitutional programs get elected etc...and in both cases...twice.

Oh, now you know better than SCOTUS?

Quite an ego you've got there.


Probably just an average sized one as far as Fark is concerned.

A history of giving government an inch has lead to them taking miles.
A history of appointing Justices who will judge the way you want them to hasn't helped either.
 
2013-03-20 06:06:52 PM  

Giltric: Do you think one that includes shotguns and handguns will pass?


No, but that doesn't mean it isn't needed.
 
2013-03-20 06:15:30 PM  

Giltric: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: I'm more fond of people who speak their mind and take principled stands than people who are more interested in popularity contests

Politics is a popularity contest, but, OK.  Good luck with that.  I'm super-OK with Teddy being all talk and no accomplishment.

Of course it is. Thats how C students who run companies into the ground get elected, thats how constitutional scholars who continue if not expand unconstitutional programs get elected etc...and in both cases...twice.

Oh, now you know better than SCOTUS?

Quite an ego you've got there.

Probably just an average sized one as far as Fark is concerned.

A history of giving government an inch has lead to them taking miles.
A history of appointing Justices who will judge the way you want them to hasn't helped either.


Nice bumper stickers.
 
2013-03-20 06:15:32 PM  

The Name: Giltric: Do you think one that includes shotguns and handguns will pass?

No, but that doesn't mean it isn't needed.


Free and easy access to abortions would have a more noticeable affect.

Gun control works in homogenous countries with low income disaprity who are subjects with little to no rights. It will never work in the US.
 
2013-03-20 06:19:48 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: Lionel Mandrake: Giltric: I'm more fond of people who speak their mind and take principled stands than people who are more interested in popularity contests

Politics is a popularity contest, but, OK.  Good luck with that.  I'm super-OK with Teddy being all talk and no accomplishment.

Of course it is. Thats how C students who run companies into the ground get elected, thats how constitutional scholars who continue if not expand unconstitutional programs get elected etc...and in both cases...twice.

Oh, now you know better than SCOTUS?

Quite an ego you've got there.

Probably just an average sized one as far as Fark is concerned.

A history of giving government an inch has lead to them taking miles.
A history of appointing Justices who will judge the way you want them to hasn't helped either.

Nice bumper stickers.


K.I.S.S.

Bumper stickers often tell the truth........

www.impactweaponscomponents.com
 
2013-03-20 06:21:53 PM  

Giltric: Gun control works in homogenous countries with low income disaprity who are subjects with little to no rights.


Translation: "Gun control works in places without poor blacks and mexicans, and I think Europe still looks like England in Monty Python and the Holy Grail."
 
2013-03-20 06:45:05 PM  

Kuroboom: Does he look kinda like Chris-chan to anyone else or is it just me?


I've been thinking the exact same thing ever since the runoff against Dewhurst.

/Sounds just like him too
//Chris is probably smarter though
///Threes
 
2013-03-20 06:47:09 PM  

cram_hole: So the Senate is like Fark? New people should lurk for a year or two and then slowly start making themselves known?  So basically Cruz is a threadshiatter/troll.


Surprisingly accurate.
 
2013-03-20 06:52:26 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: You do know that "Hispanic" is an ethnicity and not a race, right?


You do know that "M-16" is a gun and not a firearm, right?

http://thesaurus.com/browse/ethnic
 
2013-03-20 06:54:36 PM  

shanrick: When asked for comment his brother Pablo replied:
"Whatcha gonna do when she says goodbye
Whatcha gonna do when she is gone"


Snicker.
 
2013-03-20 07:14:12 PM  

Kuroboom: Does he look kinda like Chris-chan to anyone else or is it just me?


Woohoo! A Chris chan reference! I'm so hungry for content these days that I felt a tingle at the mention of similarity.
 
2013-03-20 07:19:15 PM  

The Name: Giltric: Gun control works in homogenous countries with low income disaprity who are subjects with little to no rights.

Translation: "Gun control works in places without poor blacks and mexicans, and I think Europe still looks like England in Monty Python and the Holy Grail."


You have not discussed anything yet. You may start anytime you are capable of logical and rational discussion.
 
2013-03-20 07:22:39 PM  

GAT_00: He was a punchline before he even got elected.  But since he's a Republican from TexasCanada, his victory was pretty much guaranteed once he got through the primary.  Each of those two sure love their stupid, much less combined.


Yo, Texas...quit electing carpetbaggers from Canuckistan, mkay?
 
2013-03-20 07:29:23 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Shostie: GAT_00: Yeah, but Cruz wasn't the underdog.

Against Dewhurst he was. Once again, if it weren't for the gerrymandering, Cruz would have been knocked out in the primary.

How do you gerrymander a state?


In the vein of "I'm Just A Bill (on Capitol Hill)"
 
2013-03-20 07:32:47 PM  

Giltric: The Name: Giltric: Gun control works in homogenous countries with low income disaprity who are subjects with little to no rights.

Translation: "Gun control works in places without poor blacks and mexicans, and I think Europe still looks like England in Monty Python and the Holy Grail."

You have not discussed anything yet. You may start anytime you are capable of logical and rational discussion.


Well, I kind of just called you out on your nonsense about "homogenous countries" and "subjects with little to no rights."  Would you care to elaborate so maybe you won't look like such a rube?
 
2013-03-20 07:35:54 PM  

zenobia: Lionel Mandrake: Shostie: GAT_00: Yeah, but Cruz wasn't the underdog.

Against Dewhurst he was. Once again, if it weren't for the gerrymandering, Cruz would have been knocked out in the primary.

How do you gerrymander a state?

In the vein of "I'm Just A Bill (on Capitol Hill)"


Sorry. I see what you said there. Still a good illustration for House seats, though.
 
2013-03-20 07:42:02 PM  

The Name: Giltric: The Name: Giltric: Gun control works in homogenous countries with low income disaprity who are subjects with little to no rights.

Translation: "Gun control works in places without poor blacks and mexicans, and I think Europe still looks like England in Monty Python and the Holy Grail."

You have not discussed anything yet. You may start anytime you are capable of logical and rational discussion.

Well, I kind of just called you out on your nonsense about "homogenous countries" and "subjects with little to no rights."  Would you care to elaborate so maybe you won't look like such a rube?


As a side note, I have to say that I find it hilarious when a Republican says something blatantly ignorant or offensive, someone gives it the response it deserves, and then the Republican gets all butthurt because they're not treating it like a debate on Charlie Rose.
 
2013-03-20 08:04:18 PM  
If I were a freshman senator, I wouldn'tw worry too much about the opinions of people who couldn't pass a budget for the last four years. Least of all Feinstein.
 
2013-03-20 08:43:14 PM  

The Name: Giltric: The Name: Giltric: Gun control works in homogenous countries with low income disaprity who are subjects with little to no rights.

Translation: "Gun control works in places without poor blacks and mexicans, and I think Europe still looks like England in Monty Python and the Holy Grail."

You have not discussed anything yet. You may start anytime you are capable of logical and rational discussion.

Well, I kind of just called you out on your nonsense about "homogenous countries" and "subjects with little to no rights."  Would you care to elaborate so maybe you won't look like such a rube?


The gun control crowd inevitably brings up Australia and Great Britain...as well as a Scandanavian country or two. Countries with less income disparity and a more homogenized population than the US....as well as being monarchies where it's populace are subjects with far less rights than are celebrated in the US.

You claim gun control is needed yet have chosen to not back up your claim.

Do you think the US has a low income disaprity and is a homogenized country or are you projecting your own racism?
 
2013-03-20 08:44:49 PM  

The Name: The Name: Giltric: The Name: Giltric: Gun control works in homogenous countries with low income disaprity who are subjects with little to no rights.

Translation: "Gun control works in places without poor blacks and mexicans, and I think Europe still looks like England in Monty Python and the Holy Grail."

You have not discussed anything yet. You may start anytime you are capable of logical and rational discussion.

Well, I kind of just called you out on your nonsense about "homogenous countries" and "subjects with little to no rights."  Would you care to elaborate so maybe you won't look like such a rube?

As a side note, I have to say that I find it hilarious when a Republican says something blatantly ignorant or offensive, someone gives it the response it deserves, and then the Republican gets all butthurt because they're not treating it like a debate on Charlie Rose.



Those damned republicans! The nerve of them to question my statement!
 
2013-03-20 08:54:01 PM  

xaldin: dericwater: randomjsa: IE, he destroyed the liberal position on guns with a single question and made Feinstein look like a fool, so now you hate him.

There is nothing that quite so much angers a liberal than the knowledge that they've been proven wrong.

Correction: Nothing angers a liberal more than having to reiterate a truth to some idiot blabbering on with some inane falsehood.

Issues where the idiot (i.e., GOP) are wrong on:
* Evolution
* "Legitimate rape"
* The cost and constitutionality of Obamacare
* Tricke-down economics
* Defense spending
* Climate change
* Oil subsidies
* Social Security
* Education reform
* H1-B visa reform
* Immigration reform
* Abortion and family planning
* Voter Rights
* Civil Rights
* Stem Cell research
* Most NSF-granted research
* Science in general
* Technology in general
* Economic systems in general
* Medicine and health in general
* Gun control

Each and every one of these issues -- and more, the GOP have been on the wrong side and continue to make statements and stake positions that are patently wrong, unworkable, defeating, hypocritical, self-inconsistent, unfeasible, deliberately so in some cases; and continue to keep pushing those stupid points. That's what liberals are angered at.

Interesting list. I don't think a number of the line items could be considered proven fact that only one side could possibly be right (thus there being a right or wrong side). It's a tad arrogant to unilaterally declare a different view on a topic as being the wrong side.  Now on topics that can be factually and methodically proven sure (the rather inane myths about rape/abortion that the GOP fields for instance) but several of those do not have such clear and concise facts to prove them. In fact a number of those are such complicated issues that there may not be a single right answer and neither party might be right due to the number of variables.


That's how Democrats operate. Throw in some distracting arguments, a few leftist blogs and forums, a few media outlets such as MSNBC, Huffington Post, CNN, and a few popular celebrities and the left becomes very successful at making the right look stupid on all these issues. The Democrats are also very good at taking one person's stupid opinion (ie "legitimate rape") and making that the official opinion of the Republican party.
 
Displayed 50 of 270 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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