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.

(Huffington Post)   Lindsey Graham says that the Constitution doesn't apply to Americans with funny names and dark hair   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 383
    More: Sick, Lindsey Graham, Mirandize, Boston, Americans, underwear bomber, Chechen, enemy combatant, ndaa  
•       •       •

8957 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Apr 2013 at 2:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-20 10:43:59 PM  

dericwater: I don't understand why not BC for private sale.


Because it ties directly into a government-operated database. It is a valid assumption that anyone with their name in this system who passes has purchased at least N firearms x number of database inquiries

In other countries, such databases have been used for confiscation purposes. And with the recent spate of nutjobs, anti-gun hysteria is at an all time high.

Call me paranoid, but those few pieces of information lead me to be extremely leery of attempts to increase the amount of names in the background checking system.

dericwater: If I'm your neighbor and you're making a sale of a gun to some unknown person, I think I would like to know (and so should you) that that person isn't some felonious nutcase.


Oddly enough, the last few felonious nutcases have been people that stole their guns from people who had legally purchased them (and passed their checks). I question the efficacy of your system.

dericwater: You go to the dealership, you bring your gun, the buyer brings ID, the gun dealer does the background check and if the checking clears the buyer, he pays you the money, you hand over the gun.


Believe it or not, this is how gun sales online are done. You nominate a dealer, seller ships there, you show up with ID and a fee, and you get your item if you clear.

No point here, just cool to know.

dericwater: How much of a hassle is that?


Huge, considering a private transaction between private citizens.

dericwater: If not, I say the original buyer (you, say) is responsible for the use of the gun until the sale is cleared through a background checked procedure at a gun dealership.


This is just asinine.
 
2013-04-20 10:46:12 PM  
I love how he thinks drones are a magic device that can do star-wars-esque tracking of suspects. A Drone.

Some people seriously just need to die, because their feeble minds can't grasp reality anymore.
 
2013-04-20 10:50:00 PM  

HighOnCraic: Looks like the point is moot.


Boston Marathon suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev hospitalized, unable to answer questions

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/boston-marathon-explosions/jubi la tion-thanks-after-boston-marathon-suspect-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-captured-a fter-daylong-manhunt


For once, someone could have said the "point is mute" and I would have been OK with it...you missed your chance.
 
2013-04-20 10:53:43 PM  
Just because he didn't show mercy doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't either. We should be the better man. Whatever rights he has are his until sentence is passed.

"Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough." - FDR
 
2013-04-20 10:59:03 PM  

dericwater: TsukasaK: the ha ha guy: When liberals say: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."
Conservatives hear: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."

Actually, liberals (speaking for myself hear) "We should pass knee jerk legislation that wouldn't have stopped any of the recent shootings".

I'm all about doing things that actually might help and don't trample on the rights of the law abiding. By all means, raise my taxes and make mental health care something less of a joke. I'm all for background checks on commercial sales.

Requiring a background check for a private sale? No. Magazine restrictions? No.

I don't understand why not BC for private sale. If I'm your neighbor and you're making a sale of a gun to some unknown person, I think I would like to know (and so should you) that that person isn't some felonious nutcase. I think all gun sales should be done at a licensed gun dealership. You go to the dealership, you bring your gun, the buyer brings ID, the gun dealer does the background check and if the checking clears the buyer, he pays you the money, you hand over the gun. How much of a hassle is that? If not, I say the original buyer (you, say) is responsible for the use of the gun until the sale is cleared through a background checked procedure at a gun dealership.



And Pressure Cookers!
 
2013-04-20 11:01:26 PM  

Amos Quito: What you don't like about them is that both are too liberal for you. And that whole "social safety net" thing. Tsk tsk. Stealing your hard earned money to give to lazy bums who won't work. The NERVE of those people.


Was this in reference to something I actually SAID sometime? Or is this one of those responses you randomly pull out of your ass when you can't think of anything else to say?


I love how you try to worm out of the criticism by insisting that isn't your total worldview. You hate poor people, you hate social security, and both parties violate your big government rule. Not exactly left-leaning.
 
2013-04-20 11:11:44 PM  

whidbey: Amos Quito: What you don't like about them is that both are too liberal for you. And that whole "social safety net" thing. Tsk tsk. Stealing your hard earned money to give to lazy bums who won't work. The NERVE of those people.


Was this in reference to something I actually SAID sometime? Or is this one of those responses you randomly pull out of your ass when you can't think of anything else to say?

I love how you try to worm out of the criticism by insisting that isn't your total worldview. You hate poor people, you hate social security, and both parties violate your big government rule. Not exactly left-leaning.



What is "my total worldview" whidbey? You're fantasizing - and you're on a ROLL!

Don't hold back buddy! LET ER' RIP!

/Dude, happy 4/20 day!
//You're high! Enjoy!
///But PASS the bong once in a while!


Love ya, whid.

;-)

/Just a thought...
//What if thoughts actually became things?
///Well then, we'd better thing GOOD ones, hadn't we?
 
2013-04-20 11:17:27 PM  

Amos Quito: What is "my total worldview" whidbey?


Again, love the denial. When confronted with your paranoia of government services, loathing for people who receive said services, and insistence that the very real accomplishments of the Democratic Party equate to a two-party "scam" all while never offering any other solutions, the conclusion is that you want some kind of neo-Wild West where people shoot each other and this is the whole of the law, because any kind of power center turns into Soviet Russia. Yeah, keep trying to talk your way out of that one.
 
2013-04-20 11:23:33 PM  

Guess_Who: whidbey: Not surprising that the Republicans are the ones calling for stripping an American citizen of his rights. After all, they were the ones who threw the Constitution out the window shoving the PATRIOT Act down Congress's throat a decade ago.

Oh but I thought both parties were the same.

You're couldn't be more wrong. You see when the Democrats took over the white house and both houses of congress, they repealed the Patriot Act in it's entirety. I bet the republicans were hoping that Obama would strengthen it.

/hope and change and all that jazz.


Because Congress's failure to repeal PATRIOT in a bi-partisan fashion represents the whole of the past 5 years of effort. No other accomplishments have been brought to bear.

Take a look it. It's an impressive list. Really gotta wonder which Republican policies would have resembled some of those accomplishments had McCain or Romney won their respective elections.

Yeah, but keep telling us how there's no difference between the two ideologies. That busted holier than though "libertarian" talking point really gets old when actual evidence proves otherwise.
 
2013-04-20 11:35:15 PM  
whidbey
Again, love the denial. When confronted with your paranoia of government services, loathing for people who receive said services, and insistence that the very real accomplishments of the Democratic Party equate to a two-party "scam" all while never offering any other solutions, the conclusion is that you want some kind of neo-Wild West where people shoot each other and this is the whole of the law, because any kind of power center turns into Soviet Russia. Yeah, keep trying to talk your way out of that one.

What's amazing is that most people think you're sane and we're crazy.
 
2013-04-20 11:37:34 PM  
Lindsey Graham should be censured.
 
2013-04-20 11:39:01 PM  

stoli n coke: danvon: Nobodyn0se: Yes, but the 5th Amendment specifically protects your rights AT TRIAL. As long as the police are not planning on using anything this guy says against him at trial, it's not a violation of his rights. They can interrogate him all they like without Mirandizing him, and this doesn't violate any of his rights. It's the using it at trial part that violates his rights.

You just said the same thing you said the first time. It extends beyond just your rights at a trial. Look at in the context of the 4th amendment. What you are saying is comparable to saying police can search your home without a warrant and your rights aren't violated because they won't be able to use what they found in the home against you in a trial.


That's correct. If the police search your home without a warrant and find an acre of weed and an arsenal of automatic weapons, you will walk scot free because none of what they found can be used at trial. That's the only reason police get a warrant first. Plus, you don't have to let the cops in without a warrant in the first place.

As for Miranda rights, the cops can ask whatever they want before reading someone their rights, but that person does not have to answer. Because you always have your Miranda rights and your 5th amendment rights, even before the cops read them to you. The only thing reading your rights does is make any statements you make admissible in court.

This guy in Boston has his Miranda rights already, even though people are fuming because the cops weren't yelling "You have the right to remain silent" as they were dragging his semi-concious body onto the gurney. This isn't a goddamn episode of The Shield.


The Shield was pretty farking awesome though.
 
2013-04-20 11:40:43 PM  

whidbey: Guess_Who: whidbey: Not surprising that the Republicans are the ones calling for stripping an American citizen of his rights. After all, they were the ones who threw the Constitution out the window shoving the PATRIOT Act down Congress's throat a decade ago.

Oh but I thought both parties were the same.

You're couldn't be more wrong. You see when the Democrats took over the white house and both houses of congress, they repealed the Patriot Act in it's entirety. I bet the republicans were hoping that Obama would strengthen it.

/hope and change and all that jazz.

Because Congress's failure to repeal PATRIOT in a bi-partisan fashion represents the whole of the past 5 years of effort. No other accomplishments have been brought to bear.

Take a look it. It's an impressive list. Really gotta wonder which Republican policies would have resembled some of those accomplishments had McCain or Romney won their respective elections.

Yeah, but keep telling us how there's no difference between the two ideologies. That busted holier than though "libertarian" talking point really gets old when actual evidence proves otherwise.


Yes it's so satisfying to know that if you don't get locked up in a dark hole by our government with no legal recourse then you can enjoy some of the changes Obama has made. If you even approve of the changes to begin with.

Obama has been worse than Bush in regard to taking our rights away and lack of transparency. And that's pretty farking bad by anyone's standards.
 
2013-04-20 11:41:04 PM  
I love Lindsey Graham. Being a South Carolinian, I never know what side he's going to be on.

I would buy this if he would have started with the Ft Hood shooter. These are all based on intent anyway, like enhancements for hate crimes. They're thought crimes.
 
2013-04-20 11:42:47 PM  

dericwater: TsukasaK: the ha ha guy: When liberals say: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."
Conservatives hear: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."

Actually, liberals (speaking for myself hear) "We should pass knee jerk legislation that wouldn't have stopped any of the recent shootings".

I'm all about doing things that actually might help and don't trample on the rights of the law abiding. By all means, raise my taxes and make mental health care something less of a joke. I'm all for background checks on commercial sales.

Requiring a background check for a private sale? No. Magazine restrictions? No.

I don't understand why not BC for private sale. If I'm your neighbor and you're making a sale of a gun to some unknown person, I think I would like to know (and so should you) that that person isn't some felonious nutcase. I think all gun sales should be done at a licensed gun dealership. You go to the dealership, you bring your gun, the buyer brings ID, the gun dealer does the background check and if the checking clears the buyer, he pays you the money, you hand over the gun. How much of a hassle is that? If not, I say the original buyer (you, say) is responsible for the use of the gun until the sale is cleared through a background checked procedure at a gun dealership.


Because chances are, in cases of private sales, it's unlikely that the individual is making it to an unknown person (and if they are, they're twice a fool). "Private sales" or private transfers should not include situations where I sell my gun to my friend whom I've known for 20 years, or if I am bequeathed an antique firearm that's been in the family for generations; and I suspect that it's those kind of transactions that many people (although not gun sellers) have an issue with.

Now, people who are dumb enough to be selling their personal firearms on Craigslist or somesuch are the kind to fall for the gun-nut okey-doke about how these kinds of exchanges are identical to selling a gun to a friend and NOT a commercial transaction; but that's just an example how muddy the waters have become over the last couple of decades. There should clearly be a difference between transferring a weapon to a known individual (private) and selling it online to any taker (commercial) and there should be a waiver mechanism for the former and not the latter when it comes to background checks. Just like when you sell a car you still have to transfer the title but don't have to pay the dealer's tax if you're not a car dealer.
 
2013-04-20 11:42:49 PM  

RanDomino: whidbey
Again, love the denial. When confronted with your paranoia of government services, loathing for people who receive said services, and insistence that the very real accomplishments of the Democratic Party equate to a two-party "scam" all while never offering any other solutions, the conclusion is that you want some kind of neo-Wild West where people shoot each other and this is the whole of the law, because any kind of power center turns into Soviet Russia. Yeah, keep trying to talk your way out of that one.

What's amazing is that most people think you're sane and we're crazy.


Well you'd be a bit daft if you felt the need to defend the worldview I'm commenting on. Still, I'd like to see the plan.
 
2013-04-20 11:46:48 PM  

Brubold: Yes it's so satisfying to know that if you don't get locked up in a dark hole by our government with no legal recourse then you can enjoy some of the changes Obama has made. If you even approve of the changes to begin with.


Changes you probably don't approve of anyway, right? And who's being "locked up in a dark hole," exactly?

Obama has been worse than Bush in regard to taking our rights away and lack of transparency. And that's pretty farking bad by anyone's standards.

I agree it sucks that the militant fascism Bush introduced into our culture hasn't been lifted yet. It's going to ultimately fark Obama in the history books. But he's trying to do it right, by having Congress do its job. You obviously want some kind of dictator who sets an even worse precedent.
 
2013-04-20 11:48:22 PM  

FlashHarry: lindsey graham is a disgrace. he is an america-hating piece of garbage who should be kicked out of congress.


Dont they take an oath of office? To defend the constitution?
Clearly he is a domestic terrorist bent on destroying the constitution.
Can we waterboard him to find out more critical intel??
 
2013-04-20 11:53:26 PM  

TsukasaK: the ha ha guy: When liberals say: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."
Conservatives hear: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."

Actually, liberals (speaking for myself hear) "We should pass knee jerk legislation that wouldn't have stopped any of the recent shootings".

I'm all about doing things that actually might help and don't trample on the rights of the law abiding. By all means, raise my taxes and make mental health care something less of a joke. I'm all for background checks on commercial sales.

Requiring a background check for a private sale? No. Magazine restrictions? No.



I agree that knee-jerk legislation isn't the answer, and even as a liberal I believe that many existing state bans go too far. (It's the "right to bear arms", not "right to keep a gun locked in a safe unless you're transporting it in the trunk of your car to or from an approved destination".)

However, the most recent bill maintained the private sale exemption, had no restriction on any type of gun/accessory, and gave a lot of extra protections to gun owners/sellers, but it was voted down anyway. Why? A few conservative senators insisted that making commercial background checks more effective would magically lead to a ban and confiscation of guns, somehow.

So that really was a case of one side saying "let's enforce the ban against criminals buying guns", and the other side hearing "lets ban guns".
 
2013-04-20 11:57:19 PM  
I see you guys talking about guns but the massive destruction from the marathon bombings took no guns. The gun debate aside, what could have been done to prevent that?

If people want to kill, can't they find a way? Didn't the Godfather III teach us that?

We live in an extremely violent country. If the argument comes to more guns or less guns, as long as the bad guys have any guns - or other weapons for that matter - isn't more guns in the right people's hands the better way for society?
 
2013-04-21 12:03:33 AM  
then try james holmes as an enemy combatant. or anyone who murders, rapes, assaults or jaywalks. where's the line?
 
2013-04-21 12:05:35 AM  

FlashHarry: Sock Ruh Tease: He's just saying what every Republican senator is thinking.

why is it that those who purport to love America the most are the quickest to throw away the thing that makes it great?


So much stupid, that is why.

//Citizen of the EU and Canada living on this continent for 30 years. I still can't believe what has happened to the US. WHY & WHO ruined the DREAM of the WORLD? You had such a great thing going and look at you now. So sad.

///Yes, the rest of the world sees what is happening and we weep for the US was the standard to live up to and it is now gone.
 
2013-04-21 12:06:20 AM  

Gyrfalcon: dericwater: TsukasaK: the ha ha guy: When liberals say: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."
Conservatives hear: "We should make it easier to enforce the federal bans against criminals buying guns."

Actually, liberals (speaking for myself hear) "We should pass knee jerk legislation that wouldn't have stopped any of the recent shootings".

I'm all about doing things that actually might help and don't trample on the rights of the law abiding. By all means, raise my taxes and make mental health care something less of a joke. I'm all for background checks on commercial sales.

Requiring a background check for a private sale? No. Magazine restrictions? No.

I don't understand why not BC for private sale. If I'm your neighbor and you're making a sale of a gun to some unknown person, I think I would like to know (and so should you) that that person isn't some felonious nutcase. I think all gun sales should be done at a licensed gun dealership. You go to the dealership, you bring your gun, the buyer brings ID, the gun dealer does the background check and if the checking clears the buyer, he pays you the money, you hand over the gun. How much of a hassle is that? If not, I say the original buyer (you, say) is responsible for the use of the gun until the sale is cleared through a background checked procedure at a gun dealership.

Because chances are, in cases of private sales, it's unlikely that the individual is making it to an unknown person (and if they are, they're twice a fool). "Private sales" or private transfers should not include situations where I sell my gun to my friend whom I've known for 20 years, or if I am bequeathed an antique firearm that's been in the family for generations; and I suspect that it's those kind of transactions that many people (although not gun sellers) have an issue with.

Now, people who are dumb enough to be selling their personal firearms on Craigslist or somesuch are the kind to fall for ...


Dude, I don't care if a gun's being sold from a guy to his identical twin. It's a farking gun. It's a weapon that is intended to kill people. If they can't follow a modicum amount of sane regulation because "it's too much of a trouble" then they really ought not to own the gun in the first place. Treat the weapon with respect and that means any sale should follow regulations in the transaction.
 
2013-04-21 12:07:04 AM  

whidbey: Amos Quito: What is "my total worldview" whidbey?

Again, love the denial. When confronted with your paranoia of government services,



[CITATION NEEDED]


whidbey: loathing for people who receive said services,



[CITATION NEEDED]


whidbey: and insistence that the very real accomplishments of the Democratic Party equate to a two-party "scam" all while never offering any other solutions,


Which "accomplishments"? Remember to be specific - you're in the 4/20 spotlight here, whid. Prove that you can maintain coherent thought!


whidbey: the conclusion is that you want some kind of neo-Wild West where people shoot each other and this is the whole of the law, because any kind of power center turns into Soviet Russia. Yeah, keep trying to talk your way out of that one.



I feel no need to talk my way out of your personal fantasies, whidbey.

Dude, I'm sure your "heart" is in the right place, but let's face it: You are demonstrably "challenged" when it comes to matching part (1) with slot (B).

No offense!


/But I admire you as a man who KNOWS HOW TO PARTY!
 
2013-04-21 12:07:56 AM  

avanti: //Citizen of the EU and Canada living on this continent for 30 years. I still can't believe what has happened to the US. WHY & WHO ruined the DREAM of the WORLD? You had such a great thing going and look at you now. So sad.


it hasn't happened yet. there's a BIG difference between obama wanting a miranda exclusion and lindsey graham wanting to try a US citizen on american soil as an 'enemy combatant.'
 
2013-04-21 12:09:01 AM  

the ha ha guy: However, the most recent bill maintained the private sale exemption, had no restriction on any type of gun/accessory, and gave a lot of extra protections to gun owners/sellers, but it was voted down anyway. Why? A few conservative senators insisted that making commercial background checks more effective would magically lead to a ban and confiscation of guns, somehow.


So what exactly did this law do then? Commercial sellers already require background checks (even at gun shows..), and if there was still the exemption for private sales then....?
 
2013-04-21 12:11:22 AM  
I'm pretty sure Graham sees no difference between these 2 brothers and all the 'freedom fighters' who left their respective countries and went to fight our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's the mentality, he thinks, that qualifies them as "enemy combatants", as many think radical Islam has declared war on the US and the west in general.

The problem is that we are fighting a mentality that is back by rights, the same scenario as Timothy McVeigh.
 
2013-04-21 12:15:32 AM  
avanti
//Citizen of the EU and Canada living on this continent for 30 years. I still can't believe what has happened to the US. WHY & WHO ruined the DREAM of the WORLD? You had such a great thing going and look at you now. So sad.

Since the 1940s, the boom of oil, plastic, and high technology has allowed capitalism to enjoy such high rates of profit that it has been able to allow some of the wealth to trickle down to form the middle-class, particularly for the purpose of manufacturing a class of skilled managers, planners, and engineers. Starting in the late 1970s and accelerating since, discoveries of real resources have not increased fast enough to satisfy the demand for infinitely increasing profit, so those privileges have been gradually pulled back.
 
2013-04-21 12:16:27 AM  

whidbey: Yeah, but keep telling us how there's no difference between the two ideologies


Both are utterly beholden to corporate interests. Most infamously, the republicans to the energy industry and the democrats to the entertainment industry. One ruins the environment and the other ruins culture.

There are many more similarities, but this is the most important one.
 
2013-04-21 12:31:12 AM  

RanDomino: avanti
//Citizen of the EU and Canada living on this continent for 30 years. I still can't believe what has happened to the US. WHY & WHO ruined the DREAM of the WORLD? You had such a great thing going and look at you now. So sad.

Since the 1940s, the boom of oil, plastic, and high technology has allowed capitalism to enjoy such high rates of profit that it has been able to allow some of the wealth to trickle down to form the middle-class, particularly for the purpose of manufacturing a class of skilled managers, planners, and engineers. Starting in the late 1970s and accelerating since, discoveries of real resources have not increased fast enough to satisfy the demand for infinitely increasing profit, so those privileges have been gradually pulled back.


Eventually it might be the French Revolution all over again. I understand the privilege (right) of being able to amass wealth, but at what cost to others? The last century saw so much progress and it is eroding now. Not good.
 
2013-04-21 12:51:48 AM  
TsukasaK
Both are utterly beholden to corporate interests. Most infamously, the republicans to the energy industry and the democrats to the entertainment industry. One ruins the environment and the other ruins culture.

If you had said the financial "industry" for both you'd be hitting the mark.


avanti
Eventually it might be the French Revolution all over again. I understand the privilege (right) of being able to amass wealth, but at what cost to others?

It's not so much that they have a 'right' to amass wealth as that they simply own practically everything. The privileges of the 'middle class' are based not on property but on high wages and salaries, which are much easier to revoke.
It probably won't be French Revolution so much as Fall of Rome- stretching out for hundreds of years while the former managerial class turns into a new loose network of petty landlords, with a few dramatic moments of violence now and then.
 
2013-04-21 12:56:05 AM  

Skeptos: There's a point I'm not clear on. Even if they don't READ Tsarnaev his rights, he still HAS them, correct? That is, he could still say "F off and get me a lawyer" to every question they ask him?


Correct, they don't read the miranda so he doesn't get any ideas about excercising his rights.  This is, essentially, a procedural trick.
 
2013-04-21 01:06:18 AM  

TsukasaK: the ha ha guy: However, the most recent bill maintained the private sale exemption, had no restriction on any type of gun/accessory, and gave a lot of extra protections to gun owners/sellers, but it was voted down anyway. Why? A few conservative senators insisted that making commercial background checks more effective would magically lead to a ban and confiscation of guns, somehow.

So what exactly did this law do then? Commercial sellers already require background checks (even at gun shows..), and if there was still the exemption for private sales then....?



On the "gun control" side of things, It would have added mental health records to the NICS, and eliminated some situations where people could buy guns commercially without going through the background check.

And on the pro-gun side, it would have criminalized the creation of a gun registry, retained the exemptions for private sales, allowed interstate sales of handguns, given mentally ill veterans more chances to appeal, and anyone with a CCW permit would be exempt from background checks entirely.

But according to those against the bill, it would have criminalized private sales, created a registry, and led to bans and confiscations.
 
2013-04-21 01:19:40 AM  

Amos Quito: Dude, I'm sure your "heart" is in the right place, but let's face it: You are demonstrably "challenged" when it comes to matching part (1) with slot (B).


Your posts are self-evident. No matching required.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Let me guess, just because you're paranoid....you know the rest.

Seriously dude, you just don't convince us that your Obama-driven apocalypse is at hand. And I've asked you several times what your solutions should be. Hate to break it to you--whatever they are, it's going to involve some kind of government, and some kind of social net for people who need it. And tax revenues. I know, I used the "T" word again.
 
2013-04-21 01:32:46 AM  

The_Sponge: vpb: The_Sponge: NewportBarGuy: The_Sponge: t's amusing how you care about those rights, but don't give a shiat about Second Amendment rights.

Actually, I do. I just focus on the well-regulated part that you want to ignore.


1) Go back and see the definition of "well-regulated" at the time.

The imaginary one that gun nut believe in or the real one that means the same thing today?

Keep f*cking that chicken.


HAHAHA, the guy is so scarred from seeing his fellow supports making "hen"-tai, he's projecting on others. I know it's hard bro, but the road to recovery isn't thinking about chickens again.. you need discipline to break the habit but we believe in you!
 
2013-04-21 01:33:37 AM  

whidbey: Amos Quito: Dude, I'm sure your "heart" is in the right place, but let's face it: You are demonstrably "challenged" when it comes to matching part (1) with slot (B).

Your posts are self-evident. No matching required.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Let me guess, just because you're paranoid....you know the rest.

Seriously dude, you just don't convince us that your Obama-driven apocalypse is at hand. And I've asked you several times what your solutions should be. Hate to break it to you--whatever they are, it's going to involve some kind of government, and some kind of social net for people who need it. And tax revenues. I know, I used the "T" word again.


Freedom isn't free.
 
2013-04-21 01:44:28 AM  

RanDomino: It's not so much that they have a 'right' to amass wealth as that they simply own practically everything. The privileges of the 'middle class' are based not on property but on high wages and salaries, which are much easier to revoke.
It probably won't be French Revolution so much as Fall of Rome- stretching out for hundreds of years while the former managerial class turns into a new loose network of petty landlords, with a few dramatic moments of violence now and then.


When do I get to burn the capital while fiddling?
 
2013-04-21 01:55:32 AM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: RanDomino: It's not so much that they have a 'right' to amass wealth as that they simply own practically everything. The privileges of the 'middle class' are based not on property but on high wages and salaries, which are much easier to revoke.
It probably won't be French Revolution so much as Fall of Rome- stretching out for hundreds of years while the former managerial class turns into a new loose network of petty landlords, with a few dramatic moments of violence now and then.

When do I get to burn the capital while fiddling?


You may proceed now.
 
2013-04-21 02:21:11 AM  
I guess the Constitution doesn't apply to me then.

/shrugs
 
2013-04-21 02:29:18 AM  

RanDomino: whidbey
Again, love the denial. When confronted with your paranoia of government services, loathing for people who receive said services, and insistence that the very real accomplishments of the Democratic Party equate to a two-party "scam" all while never offering any other solutions, the conclusion is that you want some kind of neo-Wild West where people shoot each other and this is the whole of the law, because any kind of power center turns into Soviet Russia. Yeah, keep trying to talk your way out of that one.

What's amazing is that most people think you're sane and we're crazy.



Yeah.

Funny, that.
 
2013-04-21 02:31:20 AM  

Gyrfalcon: whidbey: Amos Quito: Dude, I'm sure your "heart" is in the right place, but let's face it: You are demonstrably "challenged" when it comes to matching part (1) with slot (B).

Your posts are self-evident. No matching required.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Let me guess, just because you're paranoid....you know the rest.

Seriously dude, you just don't convince us that your Obama-driven apocalypse is at hand. And I've asked you several times what your solutions should be. Hate to break it to you--whatever they are, it's going to involve some kind of government, and some kind of social net for people who need it. And tax revenues. I know, I used the "T" word again.

Freedom isn't free.


Indeed.

/And whidbey isn't whid.
 
2013-04-21 02:31:23 AM  

avanti: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: RanDomino: It's not so much that they have a 'right' to amass wealth as that they simply own practically everything. The privileges of the 'middle class' are based not on property but on high wages and salaries, which are much easier to revoke.
It probably won't be French Revolution so much as Fall of Rome- stretching out for hundreds of years while the former managerial class turns into a new loose network of petty landlords, with a few dramatic moments of violence now and then.

When do I get to burn the capital while fiddling?

You may proceed now.


May I offer up a request?

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-21 02:44:41 AM  

whidbey: Amos Quito: Dude, I'm sure your "heart" is in the right place, but let's face it: You are demonstrably "challenged" when it comes to matching part (1) with slot (B).

Your posts are self-evident. No matching required.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Let me guess, just because you're paranoid....you know the rest.

Seriously dude, you just don't convince us that your Obama-driven apocalypse is at hand. And I've asked you several times what your solutions should be. Hate to break it to you--whatever they are, it's going to involve some kind of government, and some kind of social net for people who need it. And tax revenues. I know, I used the "T" word again.



Seriously, honeychild, I don't get where you're coming up with this bullshiat with me being anti-tax / anti-safety net.

I'm all for real solutions, chumley. What turns ME of is that the "solutions" proffered by those you adore always cause social and fiscal dysentery - the moar you eat, the moar you shiat.

Deadly, that.


Feed on yourself much lately?
 
2013-04-21 02:53:52 AM  

bdanger3000: If people want to kill, can't they find a way? Didn't the Godfather III teach us that?


Oh hell.  Godfather III didn't teach anyone a damn thing (aside from "don't cast Sofia Coppola in a movie").
 
2013-04-21 03:33:15 AM  

BSABSVR: bdanger3000: If people want to kill, can't they find a way? Didn't the Godfather III teach us that?

Oh hell.  Godfather III didn't teach anyone a damn thing (aside from "don't cast Sofia Coppola in a movie").



Even she learned that lesson. Glad she doesn't pull a Tarantino and put herself in the flicks she directs.
/Re-watched Django tonight. QT's Aussie accent is only slightly better than when Costner tried to go Brit in Robin Hood.
 
2013-04-21 03:33:41 AM  

The_Sponge: NewportBarGuy: The 48 hours thing? Sounds reasonable. After that, read him his rights, give him a lawyer and stand him before a judge and jury.
While we're at it, let's do that to everyone in GITMO.

It's amusing how you care about those rights, but don't give a shiat about Second Amendment rights.


Because nowhere in the constitution does it say a well regulated militia should be well regulated.
 
2013-04-21 03:41:34 AM  

stoli n coke: QT's Aussie accent is only slightly better than when Costner tried to go Brit in Robin Hood.


Oh lord.  That accent sounded like a Brit doing an impression of an American who sucks at an Australian accent.  If Tarantino wants to make one of his trademarks that he show up, he should look to Hitchcock and just make a cameo.
 
2013-04-21 03:58:23 AM  

elchip: The Shield was pretty farking awesome though.


Damn good show, had a very good run though it was unfortunate it left the air.  Really enjoying Southland, though.

<---- sucker for a good cop/crime drama
 
2013-04-21 06:55:48 AM  

stoli n coke: BSABSVR: bdanger3000: If people want to kill, can't they find a way? Didn't the Godfather III teach us that?

Oh hell.  Godfather III didn't teach anyone a damn thing (aside from "don't cast Sofia Coppola in a movie").


Even she learned that lesson. Glad she doesn't pull a Tarantino and put herself in the flicks she directs.
/Re-watched Django tonight. QT's Aussie accent is only slightly better than when Costner tried to go Brit in Robin Hood.


Unlike Hitchcock's films, nobody is looking for a QT cameo in his flicks.
 
2013-04-21 07:53:52 AM  

The_Sponge: NewportBarGuy: The_Sponge: t's amusing how you care about those rights, but don't give a shiat about Second Amendment rights.

Actually, I do. I just focus on the well-regulated part that you want to ignore.


1) Go back and see the definition of "well-regulated" at the time.

2) By all means, keep being a borderline hypocrite because you used to own an "assault weapon" as a civilian....talk about "I had mine, do f*ck you."


Whenever someone says that the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets and other basic firearms gun nuts always say it's a stupid argument. However you are now  using the exact same argument over what "well-regulated" used to mean. This is class A hypocrisy.
 
Displayed 50 of 383 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | 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