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.

(Guardian)   You may want to sit down for this but it turns out that 42 of the 45 senators who voted against keeping criminals from getting guns are being paid by the gun lobby   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 171
    More: Obvious, gun rights, Mark Begich, Gun Owners of America, guns, crimes  
•       •       •

2066 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Apr 2013 at 11:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-18 11:41:45 PM  

remus: GAT_00: edmo: What gets me is all the Pro-lifers who continue to support criminals' rights to acquire weapons and shred little kids into bloody piles and THEN be prosecuted.

Lovely.

There is little pro-life in that movement.

But that's besides the point.  Gun activists don't care about dead kids.  They value their guns more than anyone who gets killed with one.  It's the price they are more than happy to pay, because they don't think it's a price.  Just something that happens.

Unless of course any other crime is involved, then suddenly causalities matter.  The ones caused by guns?  Irrelevant, especially when a gun is used for a crime.

You know, you're right.  I honestly don't care about dead kids.  I don't let emotion cloud my reason.  I very purposely set it aside as your emotions lie to you where your logic will not.  Whether the topic is abortion or gun control, you can't let dead kids distract you from facts, logic, and reason.  Once you do that, everybody with a sob story will rule you.  All they have to do is shake a dead body at you and shed some tears and they can convince you to do whatever their cause wants.  It's shameless and disgusting to use this tactic, but it does work on the weak minded.  Remember when Hamas was caught red handed "rescuing" the same dead baby from like 3-4 different collapsed buildings?  Shameless and disgusting to use dead kids to push your political agenda.  Give me a logic based, rational argument and we'll talk.  Shake a dead baby at me and you instantly lose whatever your cause is in my mind.


So you choose to ignore any consequences of your argument, and consider that logical.

That's not logic.  That's a cult.
 
2013-04-18 11:43:03 PM  
So, If politicians are against door to door searches of the entire country, they are clearly providing a save harbor for criminals, right?  Sorry, but just because someone doesn't support treating everyone like a criminal, doesn't mean they support criminals, they're supporting our constitutional rights.  If the risk that comes with our rights frightens you so much, feel free to move.
 
2013-04-18 11:46:04 PM  

GAT_00: remus: GAT_00: edmo: What gets me is all the Pro-lifers who continue to support criminals' rights to acquire weapons and shred little kids into bloody piles and THEN be prosecuted.

Lovely.

There is little pro-life in that movement.

But that's besides the point.  Gun activists don't care about dead kids.  They value their guns more than anyone who gets killed with one.  It's the price they are more than happy to pay, because they don't think it's a price.  Just something that happens.

Unless of course any other crime is involved, then suddenly causalities matter.  The ones caused by guns?  Irrelevant, especially when a gun is used for a crime.

You know, you're right.  I honestly don't care about dead kids.  I don't let emotion cloud my reason.  I very purposely set it aside as your emotions lie to you where your logic will not.  Whether the topic is abortion or gun control, you can't let dead kids distract you from facts, logic, and reason.  Once you do that, everybody with a sob story will rule you.  All they have to do is shake a dead body at you and shed some tears and they can convince you to do whatever their cause wants.  It's shameless and disgusting to use this tactic, but it does work on the weak minded.  Remember when Hamas was caught red handed "rescuing" the same dead baby from like 3-4 different collapsed buildings?  Shameless and disgusting to use dead kids to push your political agenda.  Give me a logic based, rational argument and we'll talk.  Shake a dead baby at me and you instantly lose whatever your cause is in my mind.

So you choose to ignore any consequences of your argument, and consider that logical.

That's not logic.  That's a cult.


State your case.  Provide your facts.  FACTS.  Not conjecture.  Explain your analysis.  I'm an engineer by trade, I'll likely challenge your assertions.  If you back up your case with solid arguments, I'll be happy to agree with you.

Not much cult here.

All I'm saying, if if you try to bait me with emotional pleas, I'm likely to turn you off and toss you out.  Just be calm, rational, and stay to the facts and avoid the good 'ole debate class tricks to win me over.  It won't work.
 
2013-04-18 11:46:15 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: So, If politicians are against door to door searches of the entire country, they are clearly providing a save harbor for criminals, right?


I'm sorry about your brain injury.
 
2013-04-18 11:54:15 PM  
My shocked face. Let me show you it.
/assholes
 
2013-04-18 11:57:32 PM  

remus: State your case. Provide your facts. FACTS.


You're not interested in facts.  You call it emotional clouding.  Well dead kids are the facts.  You just don't like those facts because they're inconvenient.

How about the argument that more guns stop crime?  That Newtown and VT wouldn't have happened if there had just been an armed teacher on campus.  Well there was an armed guard at Columbine.  Didn't stop anything.  Supposedly that will scare psychopaths away, when the people who do this don't intend to live anyway and it never effected the Columbine shooters.

And all those extra guns will cause more deaths.  When a county sheriff is so irresponsible with guns that he lets his four year old son pick one up and kill his mother with one, the argument that we'd be safer with guns is ludicrous.  That's the safety from someone trained to use that gun every single day.

And of course the argument that gun control doesn't stop crime, and the example is always Chicago.  Which is also utterly nonsensical, because the problem there is gun crime!  Apparently people walking around with guns just leads to more gun deaths, and that's the argument to have fewer restrictions on guns!

You say you want logic?  Well there is nothing logical in your own positions, so I find that statement laughable and insulting.

And I'm equally sure you'll ignore all of this as well, because those facts just aren't the ones you want to hear.  You didn't get them from the NRA.
 
2013-04-18 11:58:22 PM  
Well hell, I'm a liberal but support gun rights.  I liked what some Farker (sorry I forgot who) suggested about about having background check kiosks at gun shows.  Pass it, get a wristband, you can buy a gun.

Odds are were I in or running for office, the gun lobby would contribute to me.  And I'd take it.
 
2013-04-19 12:01:36 AM  

Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So, If politicians are against door to door searches of the entire country, they are clearly providing a save harbor for criminals, right?

I'm sorry about your brain injury.


And I'm sorry you can't recognize how flawed the logic of the headline is.
 
2013-04-19 12:03:16 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So, If politicians are against door to door searches of the entire country, they are clearly providing a save harbor for criminals, right?

I'm sorry about your brain injury.

And I'm sorry you can't recognize how flawed the logic of the headline is.


Yes, donations are so very hard to understand.
 
2013-04-19 12:03:48 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So, If politicians are against door to door searches of the entire country, they are clearly providing a save harbor for criminals, right?

I'm sorry about your brain injury.

And I'm sorry you can't recognize how flawed the logic of the headline is.


The "flawed logic" of... a factual statement. I wouldn't talk about logic, you clearly have no comprehension of what it even is.
 
2013-04-19 12:04:38 AM  

TheManofPA: ArkAngel: And how many of those who voted for it received campaign money from anti-gun organizations?

I've always wanted to get my students to put together a who owns your congressman website. It would take some manpower but would be a fun resource at election time. Basically stockpile all the corporate and lobby donation records and then have a list about how it impacts his/her voting record. You could put up a record about how many times the person votes based on what they were paid.

The thing I can't figure out how to control for is the usual party politics side of things. A R who is going to vote pro-gun anyhow is going to be likely to receive money from NRA while a D who is going to vote pro-union is likely to receive money from a union. I guess you could really just chart the amount of times someone is willing to cross who pays them or only monitor things that aren't traditional R vs D fights (like say the piracy issues). Anyway, just figured I'd throw the idea out there if someone had good ways to do it.


Just make the farkers wear patches like NASCAR drivers.
 
2013-04-19 12:07:07 AM  
Ah, here we go. Should have known someone would have mocked this up already.

www.buzzpatrol.com
 
2013-04-19 12:07:57 AM  
Senator Dan Coats, $1,000
Senator Ted Cruz, $14,000
Senator Richard Burr, $1,000
Senator Jeff Flake, $5,000

You mean I can buy 4 Senators for a little more than a Honda Civic?
 
2013-04-19 12:11:48 AM  

GAT_00: remus: State your case. Provide your facts. FACTS.

You're not interested in facts.  You call it emotional clouding.  Well dead kids are the facts.  You just don't like those facts because they're inconvenient.

How about the argument that more guns stop crime?  That Newtown and VT wouldn't have happened if there had just been an armed teacher on campus.  Well there was an armed guard at Columbine.  Didn't stop anything.  Supposedly that will scare psychopaths away, when the people who do this don't intend to live anyway and it never effected the Columbine shooters.

And all those extra guns will cause more deaths.  When a county sheriff is so irresponsible with guns that he lets his four year old son pick one up and kill his mother with one, the argument that we'd be safer with guns is ludicrous.  That's the safety from someone trained to use that gun every single day.

And of course the argument that gun control doesn't stop crime, and the example is always Chicago.  Which is also utterly nonsensical, because the problem there is gun crime!  Apparently people walking around with guns just leads to more gun deaths, and that's the argument to have fewer restrictions on guns!

You say you want logic?  Well there is nothing logical in your own positions, so I find that statement laughable and insulting.

And I'm equally sure you'll ignore all of this as well, because those facts just aren't the ones you want to hear.  You didn't get them from the NRA.


Curious.  I never actually stated my position on the subject, yet you seem to believe I disagree with you on everything.  Interesting.  Without me actually stating any of the things you bring up, you're ranting about how wrong I am on all these issues.  Issues that I never said in my OP.

What I said, is don't try using http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emotional_appeal with me to win your argument.  It's a logical fallacy used by a person when they can't win their argument with a superior case.

I never said what you have apparently attributed to me.  Your response is another debate tactic to switch the subject to what you want to discuss and the point you want to make rather than actually respond to my point.  Again, that's a tactic of a weak minded, poorly prepared, and bad debater.  Your rampant use of emotional appeals rather than discussion of the point again renders your arguments invalid.
 
2013-04-19 12:12:46 AM  

randomjsa: No, get out of here... and next you're going to tell me that the Democrats support unions out of the goodness of their hearts and not because of the money in their pockets.


Workers rights > right to get killed because we can't have universal background checks.

Also, 0 out of 10.  But you're long gone.
 
2013-04-19 12:14:53 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: So, If politicians are against door to door searches of the entire country, they are clearly providing a save harbor for criminals, right?  Sorry, but just because someone doesn't support treating everyone like a criminal, doesn't mean they support criminals, they're supporting our constitutional rights.  If the risk that comes with our rights frightens you so much, feel free to move.


Background checks: because owning a firearm should be at least as difficult as getting a job.

But tell me again how getting a background check means getting treated like a criminal, because I don't hear the tens of millions of people who get jobs complaining about that little trifle of an obstacle.
 
2013-04-19 12:16:52 AM  
oi47.tinypic.com

Rocko's Modern Life knows whats up.
 
2013-04-19 12:19:41 AM  
Those corporations (Which are people, let's not forget) Those  People paid good money to ensure they can continue to sell guns in a FREE market. When's the last time you paid to have legislation passed, citizen? Look, money matters. If you can't afford to have the laws go the way you want, you are a godless heathen who deserves to die from no healthcare.
 
2013-04-19 12:20:30 AM  

Frank N Stein: [oi47.tinypic.com image 637x473]

Rocko's Modern Life knows whats up.


Please find one from the Hope N' Change webcomic series.  Those really accentuate the finely honed conservative wit we've come to expect from the likes of Victoria Jackson.
 
2013-04-19 12:21:20 AM  

Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So, If politicians are against door to door searches of the entire country, they are clearly providing a save harbor for criminals, right?

I'm sorry about your brain injury.


Objection. Assumes organ not in evidence.
 
2013-04-19 12:21:33 AM  
Really subby?

Christ, why are gun control advocates such small-minded folks?

It wasn't a vote to stop criminals from getting guns. That's why your side sucks at dealing with the issue of crime.

colithian: I know, exactly. I always laugh at these morons like Ted Nugent who think they need armor-piercing rifles to "hurt American soldiers, if necessary".


You do realize every centerfire rifle round IS armor piercing. They're capable of piercing standard ballistic vests.
 
2013-04-19 12:21:47 AM  

remus: GAT_00: remus: State your case. Provide your facts. FACTS.

You're not interested in facts.  You call it emotional clouding.  Well dead kids are the facts.  You just don't like those facts because they're inconvenient.

How about the argument that more guns stop crime?  That Newtown and VT wouldn't have happened if there had just been an armed teacher on campus.  Well there was an armed guard at Columbine.  Didn't stop anything.  Supposedly that will scare psychopaths away, when the people who do this don't intend to live anyway and it never effected the Columbine shooters.

And all those extra guns will cause more deaths.  When a county sheriff is so irresponsible with guns that he lets his four year old son pick one up and kill his mother with one, the argument that we'd be safer with guns is ludicrous.  That's the safety from someone trained to use that gun every single day.

And of course the argument that gun control doesn't stop crime, and the example is always Chicago.  Which is also utterly nonsensical, because the problem there is gun crime!  Apparently people walking around with guns just leads to more gun deaths, and that's the argument to have fewer restrictions on guns!

You say you want logic?  Well there is nothing logical in your own positions, so I find that statement laughable and insulting.

And I'm equally sure you'll ignore all of this as well, because those facts just aren't the ones you want to hear.  You didn't get them from the NRA.

Curious.  I never actually stated my position on the subject, yet you seem to believe I disagree with you on everything.  Interesting.  Without me actually stating any of the things you bring up, you're ranting about how wrong I am on all these issues.  Issues that I never said in my OP.

What I said, is don't try using http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emotional_appeal with me to win your argument.  It's a logical fallacy used by a person when they can't win their argument with a superior case.

I never said what you have apparently attributed to me.  Your response is another debate tactic to switch the subject to what you want to discuss and the point you want to make rather than actually respond to my point.  Again, that's a tactic of a weak minded, poorly prepared, and bad debater.  Your rampant use of emotional appeals rather than discussion of the point again renders your arguments invalid.


You are hiding behind your desire for logic, setting yourself on a detached pedestal far above the rest of the rabble.

You have an ego problem, dude. Emotions are apart of human nature, and when 20 kids die, because we have lax gun laws that allow a kindergarten teacher to have an arsenal with an unstable child in the house, well that emotional response is pretty fracking necessary.

He stated his facts. You dodge with a sad attempt at debunking his facts with an unemotional appeal that makes you sound like a ghat damned robot.
 
2013-04-19 12:24:24 AM  

remus: GAT_00: remus: State your case. Provide your facts. FACTS.

You're not interested in facts.  You call it emotional clouding.  Well dead kids are the facts.  You just don't like those facts because they're inconvenient.

How about the argument that more guns stop crime?  That Newtown and VT wouldn't have happened if there had just been an armed teacher on campus.  Well there was an armed guard at Columbine.  Didn't stop anything.  Supposedly that will scare psychopaths away, when the people who do this don't intend to live anyway and it never effected the Columbine shooters.

And all those extra guns will cause more deaths.  When a county sheriff is so irresponsible with guns that he lets his four year old son pick one up and kill his mother with one, the argument that we'd be safer with guns is ludicrous.  That's the safety from someone trained to use that gun every single day.

And of course the argument that gun control doesn't stop crime, and the example is always Chicago.  Which is also utterly nonsensical, because the problem there is gun crime!  Apparently people walking around with guns just leads to more gun deaths, and that's the argument to have fewer restrictions on guns!

You say you want logic?  Well there is nothing logical in your own positions, so I find that statement laughable and insulting.

And I'm equally sure you'll ignore all of this as well, because those facts just aren't the ones you want to hear.  You didn't get them from the NRA.

Curious.  I never actually stated my position on the subject, yet you seem to believe I disagree with you on everything.  Interesting.  Without me actually stating any of the things you bring up, you're ranting about how wrong I am on all these issues.  Issues that I never said in my OP.

What I said, is don't try using http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emotional_appeal with me to win your argument.  It's a logical fallacy used by a person when they can't win their argument with a superior case.

I never said what yo ...


You wanted logic.  I gave you some.  Like I predicted, you weren't interested at all.
 
2013-04-19 12:25:04 AM  
Fracking toasters.

/off to watch Razor.
//seems pertinent after reading that tripe
///kthxbai
 
2013-04-19 12:25:19 AM  

Mrbogey: Really subby?

Christ, why are gun control advocates such small-minded folks?

It wasn't a vote to stop criminals from getting guns. That's why your side sucks at dealing with the issue of crime.

colithian: I know, exactly. I always laugh at these morons like Ted Nugent who think they need armor-piercing rifles to "hurt American soldiers, if necessary".

You do realize every centerfire rifle round IS armor piercing. They're capable of piercing standard ballistic vests.


Yeah, small-minded.  Tell me again who is trying to solve the problem and who is trying to make money and keep hicks with weapons they don't need.

Not that I think gun control is particularly helpful in solving the problem, but at least their side isn't full of cold, heartless selfish assholes who think they need half the sh*t they own.  Show me one bill put forth by the gun rights advocates that addresses the problem of mass murder via firearm.  I'll be waiting.

But until you do, cry me the "2nd Amendment can't be regulated" river again.  It's a beautiful sight to behold.
 
2013-04-19 12:25:28 AM  

OneManArmy: You have an ego problem, dude. Emotions are apart of human nature, and when 20 kids die, because we have lax gun laws that allow a kindergarten teacher to have an arsenal with an unstable child in the house, well that emotional response is pretty fracking necessary.


20 kids died because guys like you insist that they die rather than allowing teachers be able to defend themselves. Can you sleep well at night knowing that you hold such a belief? Really dude... 20 kids and you're okay with a madman shooting them dead rather than arming a guard or a teacher? What's wrong with you?
 
2013-04-19 12:25:37 AM  

coeyagi: Frank N Stein: [oi47.tinypic.com image 637x473]

Rocko's Modern Life knows whats up.

Please find one from the Hope N' Change webcomic series.  Those really accentuate the finely honed conservative wit we've come to expect from the likes of Victoria Jackson.


It must really suck to be you.
 
2013-04-19 12:26:49 AM  

Frank N Stein: coeyagi: Frank N Stein: [oi47.tinypic.com image 637x473]

Rocko's Modern Life knows whats up.

Please find one from the Hope N' Change webcomic series.  Those really accentuate the finely honed conservative wit we've come to expect from the likes of Victoria Jackson.

It must really suck to be you.


Point. Illustrated. Perfectly.
 
2013-04-19 12:27:40 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: Let's move on and try to improve mental health care. Which of course these same people will now oppose


Yup.  Pretty much.  Funny how ever since Newtown gun owners have come from all over out of the woodwork supporting things like universal healthcare, welfare and a national, publicly-funded effort to treat mental illness.

Kinda makes you wonder where we'd be as a country if these people ever gave a shiat about these things when gun control ISN'T on the table.
 
2013-04-19 12:27:58 AM  

Mrbogey: OneManArmy: You have an ego problem, dude. Emotions are apart of human nature, and when 20 kids die, because we have lax gun laws that allow a kindergarten teacher to have an arsenal with an unstable child in the house, well that emotional response is pretty fracking necessary.

20 kids died because guys like you insist that they die rather than allowing teachers be able to defend themselves. Can you sleep well at night knowing that you hold such a belief? Really dude... 20 kids and you're okay with a madman shooting them dead rather than arming a guard or a teacher? What's wrong with you?


Hahahaha. Wow. Yes arm those teachers hot shot. Nothing like hormone addled teenagers in close proximity to firearms in a public setting. You've got a real winner of an idea there. Gold star.
 
2013-04-19 12:30:09 AM  

cman: There is an easier explanation for why this happened:

We are living in the age of megahyperpartisanship. Anything that Obama likes the GOP fights tooth and nail to stop it.

/Gun Lobby is probably funding those who voted yes as well


Megahyperpartisanship? Is that what you call it when the two parties agree 99% on 99% of the issues?
 
2013-04-19 12:31:09 AM  
When do you declare your democracy lost? Whats the litmus test?
 
2013-04-19 12:31:47 AM  

coeyagi: Yeah, small-minded. Tell me again who is trying to solve the problem and who is trying to make money and keep hicks with weapons they don't need.


You do not want to solve the problem. You just want more dead kids so you can win an argument.  Pretty sick IMO.

GAT_00: How about the argument that more guns stop crime? That Newtown and VT wouldn't have happened if there had just been an armed teacher on campus. Well there was an armed guard at Columbine. Didn't stop anything. Supposedly that will scare psychopaths away, when the people who do this don't intend to live anyway and it never effected the Columbine shooters.


This isn't the first time this has been brought up. I guess you like eating canards....

On April 20, 1999, Neil Gardner, an armed sheriff's deputy who had been policing the school for almost two years, was eating lunch when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold arrived at Columbine with their deadly arsenal and deadlier intentions.
Gardner said he got a call from a custodian that he was needed in the school's back parking lot. A few minutes later, he encountered Harris, and the two exchanged gunfire. The exchange with Harris lasted for an extended period of time, during which Harris' gun jammed.
The deputy and the backup he immediately called for exchanged fire with the shooters a second time and helped begin the evacuation of students, all before SWAT teams arrived, and before Harris and Klebold eventually killed themselves in the library.


Summary: The armed guard tied up the shooter and helped to evacuate students thus saving lives.

How pissed off are you that Columbine wasn't deadlier? If only another dozen kids were dead... FINALLY maybe you'd have gotten that gun control you wanted.
 
2013-04-19 12:31:56 AM  
I also love how conservatives shout "arm the teachers!" Out one side of their mouths and the. Gut government funding, preventing me from becoming a teacher and to those that already are, saddle them with 45 kids to a classroom.

There's a disconnect there. A wire frayed.
 
2013-04-19 12:31:57 AM  

Mrbogey: 20 kids died because guys like you insist that they die rather than allowing teachers be able to defend themselves.


2/10
 
2013-04-19 12:34:08 AM  
Am I the only one who farking realizes that every single gun control measure being proposed as of late  would not have stopped the recent shootings?

They stole their guns. Your background checks, your magazine restrictions, every bit of it, completely meaningless.
 
2013-04-19 12:34:09 AM  

OneManArmy: I also love how conservatives shout "arm the teachers!" Out one side of their mouths and the. Gut government funding, preventing me from becoming a teacher and to those that already are, saddle them with 45 kids to a classroom.

There's a disconnect there. A wire frayed.


No disconnect. It's called stickin it to the libs. reactionary politics
 
2013-04-19 12:34:20 AM  

OneManArmy: Hahahaha. Wow. Yes arm those teachers hot shot. Nothing like hormone addled teenagers in close proximity to firearms in a public setting. You've got a real winner of an idea there. Gold star.


Remember: Theoretical violence is equal to actual violence.

And if we liberalize CCW laws there will be RUNNING GUN BATTLES!!!

Your fear based arguments failed. Try harder.
 
2013-04-19 12:35:09 AM  

OneManArmy: Yes arm those teachers hot shot.


Which means you're the Devil incarnate to conservatives unless they want you to double as a security guard.
 
2013-04-19 12:35:31 AM  

Fart_Machine: Mrbogey: 20 kids died because guys like you insist that they die rather than allowing teachers be able to defend themselves.

2/10


He's trying to turn our outrage of gun culture against us, the emotional plea of "20 dead six year olds!"

Yet his solutions would cause more incidents, not less, so it doesn't really work and makes him look rather smarmy.
 
2013-04-19 12:35:41 AM  
Mrbogey:

20 kids died because guys like you insist that they die rather than allowing teachers be able to defend themselves. Can you sleep well at night knowing that you hold such a belief? Really dude... 20 kids and you're okay with a madman shooting them dead rather than arming a guard or a teacher? What's wrong with you?

www.rawstory.com


"YES WE NEED AS MANY GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS! IF NOBODY AGREES THEN LET THEIR FARKING KIDS DIE IN A HAIL OF BULLETS BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT MY LIBERTIES DAMNIT!"
 
2013-04-19 12:36:29 AM  
the senators' crime is treason
greed against the common good

they should all be publicly executed at Guantanamo
that crazy lawless fortress of justice
 
2013-04-19 12:37:00 AM  

coeyagi: Frank N Stein: coeyagi: Frank N Stein: [oi47.tinypic.com image 637x473]

Rocko's Modern Life knows whats up.

Please find one from the Hope N' Change webcomic series.  Those really accentuate the finely honed conservative wit we've come to expect from the likes of Victoria Jackson.

It must really suck to be you.

Point. Illustrated. Perfectly.


Please, and your retort is suppose to be the wry, pointed sword of wit?
No, I really mean it. It must really suck to be you. I'm not trying to be funny. I'm not trying to amuse the readers of this thread by sharply pealing away at you, exposing your very essence in a simple, singular sentence of tuned satire. I'm just stating a fact: It must really suck to be you.
 
2013-04-19 12:38:02 AM  

doglover: The Ds don't want you to have fun or drugs.


Modern Democrats are pretty green, if you catch my drift.

/live in Seattle
 
2013-04-19 12:39:01 AM  

OneManArmy: Fart_Machine: Mrbogey: 20 kids died because guys like you insist that they die rather than allowing teachers be able to defend themselves.

2/10

He's trying to turn our outrage of gun culture against us, the emotional plea of "20 dead six year olds!"

Yet his solutions would cause more incidents, not less, so it doesn't really work and makes him look rather smarmy.


Or we need more husky boys as meat shields.  This is what conservatives actually believe.
 
2013-04-19 12:41:52 AM  

davynelson: the senators' crime is treason
greed against the common good

they should all be publicly executed at Guantanamo
that crazy lawless fortress of justice


No, this was democracy working exactly the way it's supposed to work . . .

in the most batshiat insane country on earth.

Seriously, nearly a majority of this country is nothing but backwards rubes who think Jesus created the earth two hundred years ago and that Michelle Bachmann is a master stateswoman.  We're what happens when a nation manages to become a superpower without ever experiencing the Enlightenment.  We have nobody to blame but ourselves.
 
2013-04-19 12:42:47 AM  

Tatsuma: Darth_Lukecash: U.S. Congress: The best covernment that money can buy

To be fair, that's pretty much every government, not just the U.S. Congress


Well, certainly not Israel. They're absolutely not motivated by money. Their motivation is Palestinian genocide.
 
2013-04-19 12:43:22 AM  

TsukasaK: Am I the only one who farking realizes that every single gun control measure being proposed as of late  would not have stopped the recent shootings?

They stole their guns. Your background checks, your magazine restrictions, every bit of it, completely meaningless.


There are shootings every day in our country. Thousands of them. The catalyst for this latest attempt may be 20 dead 6-year-olds, but it's also because of all the other dead people, too.

Uncool story, Bro:

My uncle committed suicide with a gun three weeks ago today. He would probably be alive right now if we had stricter gun control laws. It turns out, when folks don't have the means to kill themselves instantly, they choose to live.

/Uncool story, Bro
 
2013-04-19 12:44:55 AM  

GAT_00: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Fart_Machine: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So, If politicians are against door to door searches of the entire country, they are clearly providing a save harbor for criminals, right?

I'm sorry about your brain injury.

And I'm sorry you can't recognize how flawed the logic of the headline is.

Yes, donations are so very hard to understand.


FFS man, that's not even the sticking point, learn to read.  The point is that because they're defending our right to not be harassed when purchasing a constitutionally guaranteed item.  They're not "against keeping criminals from getting guns"

A Dark Evil Omen: The "flawed logic" of... a factual statement. I wouldn't talk about logic, you clearly have no comprehension of what it even is.


And you fail too.  See above.
 
2013-04-19 12:47:39 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: FFS man, that's not even the sticking point, learn to read. The point is that because they're defending our right to not be harassed when purchasing a constitutionally guaranteed item. They're not "against keeping criminals from getting guns"


Seriously? This is your logic? So. How do you feel about all the attempts by the GOP to disenfranchise poors, blacks, Hispanics, students, and the elderly?
 
Displayed 50 of 171 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report