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.

(Politicker)   Who would have thought that the man who banned large cups of soda would have a knee jerk reaction to the Boston bombers and want to re-interpret the Constitution?   (politicker.com) divider line 48
    More: Scary, organizations, Boston, emotional reaction, Michael Bloomberg, judicial interpretation  
•       •       •

12143 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Apr 2013 at 9:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-23 09:49:56 AM  
20 votes:
"Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms."

Yeah Bloomberg. People like YOU.
2013-04-23 09:57:10 AM  
18 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: "Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms."

Yeah Bloomberg. People like YOU.


I consider Michael Bloomberg a greater threat to my freedoms than a couple of random Chechens who decided to have a DIY jihad.

I consider Michael Bloomberg a greater threat to my freedoms than some random Taliban fighter off in Afghanistan fighting because his family needs to be fed and it was the only job he could find.

I consider Michael Bloomberg a greater threat to my freedoms than a ten thousand DPRK soldiers who would run out of food, fuel and ammo within a day if they tried to attack.
2013-04-23 09:57:40 AM  
12 votes:
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience."

-C.S. Lewis
2013-04-23 09:49:53 AM  
10 votes:
"Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin
2013-04-23 10:01:39 AM  
7 votes:
There is no safety, anywhere, ever.  Safety is an illusion we have since most bad things that can happen to us are statistically unlikely.  You are not safe, you cannot be made safe.  Deal with it, and go on with your life.
gja [TotalFark]
2013-04-23 09:57:38 AM  
6 votes:
Dear Bloomie,
Go DIAF you self-important, stuffed-shirt, rich-biatch, pencil-necked elitist POS.
Thank you
2013-04-23 10:30:06 AM  
5 votes:
"We're going to suspend your rights to protest, bear arms, privacy, and trial by jury."
"Why?"
"To protect you from terrorists."
"Why do we need to be protected from terrorists?"
"They hate you for your freedom."
2013-04-23 10:00:10 AM  
4 votes:
This guy has to give partisans fits.  He presides over the second-most segregated city in America and the one with the greatest income inequality, however that city is also the cultural capital for the America Left.  He's a successful businessman, but he also believes in heavy government regulation.  He's big government, but in both a fascist and leftist sort of way.

In any event, I'm glad he isn't my mayor.
2013-04-23 12:01:27 PM  
3 votes:
"Government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us from its great power to harm us."
Ronald Reagan.
2013-04-23 10:07:07 AM  
3 votes:
Yes, great idea, the government interpreting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to take away freedoms from the people and expand the powers of the government.  It is no surprise that a member of the government who is openly anti-Second Amendment would make the claim that reinterpreting the Constitution to take more away from the people is needed.

Any leader, city, state or federal who says such things should be removed from office at once.the founding fathers established a government for the people, not one to rule the people.
2013-04-23 09:53:38 AM  
3 votes:
You're just going to have to give up some of your freedoms to be free.
2013-04-23 11:36:42 AM  
2 votes:
I can't say it better:

i.imgur.com

/New York should be ashamed for electing that arsehole.
2013-04-23 10:55:11 AM  
2 votes:
4.bp.blogspot.com
2013-04-23 10:43:50 AM  
2 votes:

Bravo Two: Aarontology: Fark It: Bloomberg is the 25th richest man in America and has instituted and defended a racially-motivated "stop and frisk" campaign on the streets of New York, as well as overseen countless instances of police misconduct and brutality. Yet for some reason that I won't mention because threadjacking, he's lionized in some progressive circles.

America in general doesn't give two shiats what the police are doing as long as they're doing it to someone else.

Yep. As is proven by every thread on fark.

What I like even more is that just about every thread involving police boils down to "fark the police, they're abusive assholes." And yet in every gun control thread, more than a few people say that only the Police should have access to things like ARs and high powered weapons and high capacity magazines.

So, basically what I've taken away from this is that we hate the cops and want to see them cleaned up and punished for their abuses, but we would rather let them outgun us and continue to maintain a posture of militarization so that we can be unilaterally controlled at the whim of police.

Personally, it's stop and frisk and the policies of many police that abuse the rights of the individuals that give me a deep-seated desire to be able to shoot back if a SWAT team busts my door down in the middle of the night when they get the wrong house.


Bravo Two: Gavenger: Pants full of macaroni!!: Why no one has punched this guy in the face yet is anyone's guess.

Because the guy is surrounded by a security force second only to the President?

How about we just mail him and his guards all to Abu Dhabi?

Well I do find it ironic that someone like him who is hyper anti-2A, surrounds himself with a veritble arsenal of firearms.  Remember, his safety is paramount, yours, not so much.


Gaggle of above-the-law, beyond-reproach cops with AR-15s and 30-round magazines and a history of racism and brutality?

Those are patrol carbines!  How dare you impugn America's heroes!  They're for your protection!

Law-abiding citizen with an AR and a 30-round magazine?

Clearly a lunatic who is probably racist and has a small penis.  Assault rifles and weapons of war have no place on America's streets!  You don't need all that hardware for your protection!

I'm pro-gun and have never been in the NRA.  I also oppose the Patriot Act, am pro-choice, an atheist, against welfare for Israel, pro marriage equality, and generally line up with Democrats when it comes to immigration reform.  I am pro universal healthcare.  I am vehemently opposed to the drug war and I would never convict anyone charged with a drug crime or prostitution, or who shot at the police during a no-knock raid.

Yet to hear the vitriol and hyperbole that gets thrown around on the internet, you'd think I was a robe-wearing klansman right-winger who just wants to shoot darkies.  Sandy Hook and more recently, the Boston bombings have really set us right back to our post-9/11 levels of vitriol directed against those who are popularly viewed as responsible or who aren't displaying populist, chest-thumping nationalism.

Values aren't values until times of crisis, hardship, and malcontent.  Until then they're just platitudes, conveniences.  This country, ever since I've been a thinking, observant adult, has shown me what passes for "values" time and time again, and I don't like what I've seen.
2013-04-23 10:38:16 AM  
2 votes:
Reading this thread is simply fascinating. It is a perfect example of the boiling frog scenario. The removal of freedoms from those you disagree with is a fark staple. I just read an article about Sweden, that is held up as a beacon of what is good about socialism, taking a boy away from his family for years for the crime of home schooling him. Their rationale is that the state gives you all the information you need so it is illegal to teach your kids anything else. Wow. This is the endgame for liberals and so what Bloomberg says and does is perfectly in line with leftist thinking but he went just a tad too far too fast. He turned up the heat a couple of degrees too fast on the frog and the frog figured out it was being boiled. So everyone will tell Bloomberg to shut up and countries like England and Sweden and soon the US will continue the march to opppression one small increment at a time. It makes me sad.
2013-04-23 10:16:14 AM  
2 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Burr: "Of all tyrannies...

-C.S. Lewis

I like that. I like most of what C.S. Lewis wrote on matters of morality, but I hadn't run across this quote. Where is it from?


Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
-C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock

I searched and found a longer quote. I quite like the end. The essay that is from can a be found in the underlined book (among other places). Did not do an in depth search, so I can't tell you where it first appeared, but I'd wager good money someone will happen along shortly who will be able to tell you more than you want to know...
2013-04-23 10:13:51 AM  
2 votes:
FTFA:We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms.

He added: "So I propose we do it first, thus eliminating their motivation before they can do it themselves."
2013-04-23 10:10:45 AM  
2 votes:
Lets go with no.

For nanny staters like bloomberg there is NOTHING SAFE ENOUGH and when proven that their current measures don't work they just want to go "SAFER" and turn the nerf ray up to 11.
2013-04-23 10:03:04 AM  
2 votes:

James!: You know that soda ban never got enacted right?


The courts stopped it, not because Bloomberg came to his senses.
2013-04-23 10:00:50 AM  
2 votes:
* feebly raises hand * - I did.  Just the tip of the nutcase iceberg.  Hold on folks, it's gonna get weirder.
2013-04-23 09:57:19 AM  
2 votes:
They hate us for our freedoms, so let's take a few away from you so they'll hate us less.
2013-04-23 09:50:30 AM  
2 votes:
Lemme guess...

"something, something...9/11. Something, 9/11, something something."
2013-04-23 09:50:28 AM  
2 votes:
How about no? Does no work for you?
2013-04-24 03:41:22 PM  
1 votes:

fartacus: No, they just don't want abortion to be a protected right.


Which is intruding into others' private lives, which you claimed only Democrats wanted to do... Don't forget they also tried to outlaw gay sex, until the Supreme Court set them straight (no pun intended)...

No, they just don't want marriage redefined.

Yeah, just like these guys didn't!

i651.photobucket.com

Bullshiat. The Democrats are doing an equally fine job of trying to strip individual liberty in the name of safety and income equality. The Democrats want the Democratic Socialist States of America, where all is owned by the state, and individual rights no longer exist.

Both sides are bad, so vote Republican?

/I do so wish there were a sane, viable third party choice in America...
//As it is, we all tend to agree both parties do suck, but think one sucks marginally less than the other depending on our leanings on certain things...
2013-04-23 03:33:40 PM  
1 votes:
I'm thinking that 99% of terrorists aren't aware and certainly do not care about our freedoms. They simply want to kill us and injure us for a variety of reasons. The only people chafed by our freedoms work in our government or benefit from governmental actions.
2013-04-23 01:06:51 PM  
1 votes:

Clemkadidlefark: Can you imagine what Patrick Henry, with cane in hand would physically do to this puffed up popinjay?


Patric Henry would most likely exclaim: DAMN....Can I go for a ride in that whirling bird thing you have..
2013-04-23 12:51:47 PM  
1 votes:

Smackledorfer: Bravo Two: rattchett: BgJonson79: Smackledorfer: Oldiron_79: Bravo Two: "Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin

THIS

Neither is worth much without some of the other. Repeating that quote in lieu of discussing an issue on its merits is asinine.

I think Ben would agree, considering he wasn't an anarchist.

Are you saying that liberty equals anarchy?

Life in the state of nature is nasty, brutish and short. And free.

(The above note is not to be in anyway interpreted as agreement with the positions of Mayor Bloomberg - who appears to be saying that freedom requires that citizens give up their freedoms)

I liken those who argue we must accept limitations on freedom for "Security" to a child given a security blanket by a parent and told it keeps out all the bad things. Only in our case, the child finds the blanket does not keep out all bad things, and demands a thicker, heavier, blanket, continuing the cycle until the blanket slowly suffocates the child into immobility beneath its burden.

So once again you use a poorly worded catch-all phrase, this time following it up with a bad comparison to insult anyone who disagrees with your statement?

BojanglesPaladin, should I be yet again reinterpreting his statement and not judge it by the wording he uses?

Because some limitations on freedom ARE necessary for security.


Ugh. How plain must I be? We put in place laws that make punishments required for certain behaviors. We enact measures of control to reasonably catch those who would attempt to harm us and stop them.

The point I keep trying to get through to you, which you either accidentally or willfully ignore, is that the types of reasonable restrictions and exceptions we conceived of do not equate to preemptively limiting the extent to which people enjoy freedoms.  In general, we basically say do what you please so long as it does not harm others, and does not involve certain things that we agree are evil.

Those restrictions, and the reasonable limitations we have in place in order to ensure order in society are NOT analogous to granting the government permission to monitor our phone calls, e-mail, mail, etc. It does NOT allow them to arbitrarily restrict how we vote, etc.

We have accepted certain dubious restrictions despite their not having anything to do with what they're billed as now. Speed limits were imposed during WWII in order to enforce fuel conservation. The "safety" argument is a byproduct but not the intent.   The original tax stamp act on full auto firearms? Enacted in order to prevent minorities from being able to afford those types of weapons. Original tax stamp on Marijuana? Designed more as a moral fight in order to keep its sister product, Hemp, from competing with newspaper rag and cotton.

Since then, laws have gone from being social rules that codify specific behaviors as wrong and empowering the government to prevent such behavior in society at large into being means of control and to be used as a bludgeon for whatever moral or political force wishes to wield them.

How hard is it for you to discern between these two concepts, and the very real difference between reasonably agreeing that behaviors that harm others should have consequences recognized and codified by society as punishable by the state, and accepting that laws can be put in place that preemptively seek to, in extreme cases, make enforcement of behavior an excuse to control the behavior of the populace?

Take NY's Stop-and-Frisk laws. These are a basic violation of the 4th Amendment. Warrantless wiretapping and government inspection of your e-mail (the IRS does this routinely) likewise.

NEITHER of these are necessary laws or powers in order to provide for the security of the nation, especially when balanced against the very basic protections specifically designed to prevent this sort of behavior.

In our country, men are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and are given every protection to keep their private affairs private, and their activities their own business unless they affect the public.  We've grown way beyond that basic premise we took for granted to a point where we have to fight for people to recognize that it's not worth the few crimes prevented if in doing so you lose the basic right to live without the approval or inspection of others.
2013-04-23 10:52:23 AM  
1 votes:

Silverstaff: Fark It: Gaggle of above-the-law, beyond-reproach cops with AR-15s and 30-round magazines and a history of racism and brutality?

Those are patrol carbines! How dare you impugn America's heroes! They're for your protection!

Law-abiding citizen with an AR and a 30-round magazine?

Clearly a lunatic who is probably racist and has a small penis. Assault rifles and weapons of war have no place on America's streets! You don't need all that hardware for your protection!

I'm pro-gun and have never been in the NRA. I also oppose the Patriot Act, am pro-choice, an atheist, against welfare for Israel, pro marriage equality, and generally line up with Democrats when it comes to immigration reform. I am pro universal healthcare. I am vehemently opposed to the drug war and I would never convict anyone charged with a drug crime or prostitution, or who shot at the police during a no-knock raid.

Yet to hear the vitriol and hyperbole that gets thrown around on the internet, you'd think I was a robe-wearing klansman right-winger who just wants to shoot darkies. Sandy Hook and more recently, the Boston bombings have really set us right back to our post-9/11 levels of vitriol directed against those who are popularly viewed as responsible or who aren't displaying populist, chest-thumping nationalism.

Values aren't values until times of crisis, hardship, and malcontent. Until then they're just platitudes, conveniences. This country, ever since I've been a thinking, observant adult, has shown me what passes for "values" time and time again, and I don't like what I've seen.

I hear you, except for the Atheist thing I agree with you 100% (and even then, I'm pretty mellow on the religion thing).

Sucks being non-stereotypical around here.  Say you are an NRA member or support gun rights and you get treated like a teabagger wackjob by the left.  Say you are in favor of marriage equality and universal healthcare and you're called a Marxist/Communist traitor by the right.

We need a party, ...


How about we form the Franklin Party? Reason and Logic without the crap.
2013-04-23 10:50:43 AM  
1 votes:

Fark It: Gaggle of above-the-law, beyond-reproach cops with AR-15s and 30-round magazines and a history of racism and brutality?

Those are patrol carbines! How dare you impugn America's heroes! They're for your protection!

Law-abiding citizen with an AR and a 30-round magazine?

Clearly a lunatic who is probably racist and has a small penis. Assault rifles and weapons of war have no place on America's streets! You don't need all that hardware for your protection!

I'm pro-gun and have never been in the NRA. I also oppose the Patriot Act, am pro-choice, an atheist, against welfare for Israel, pro marriage equality, and generally line up with Democrats when it comes to immigration reform. I am pro universal healthcare. I am vehemently opposed to the drug war and I would never convict anyone charged with a drug crime or prostitution, or who shot at the police during a no-knock raid.

Yet to hear the vitriol and hyperbole that gets thrown around on the internet, you'd think I was a robe-wearing klansman right-winger who just wants to shoot darkies. Sandy Hook and more recently, the Boston bombings have really set us right back to our post-9/11 levels of vitriol directed against those who are popularly viewed as responsible or who aren't displaying populist, chest-thumping nationalism.

Values aren't values until times of crisis, hardship, and malcontent. Until then they're just platitudes, conveniences. This country, ever since I've been a thinking, observant adult, has shown me what passes for "values" time and time again, and I don't like what I've seen.


I hear you, except for the Atheist thing I agree with you 100% (and even then, I'm pretty mellow on the religion thing).

Sucks being non-stereotypical around here.  Say you are an NRA member or support gun rights and you get treated like a teabagger wackjob by the left.  Say you are in favor of marriage equality and universal healthcare and you're called a Marxist/Communist traitor by the right.

We need a party, or a caucus, or some kind of organization for Americans who believe in Freedom, Logic, and Reason.  A group who support all civil liberties, even unpopular ones (this means letting minorities vote without Voter ID law trickery, and it means supporting gun rights).  A group who supports equality for all (marriage equality included)  A group who supports helping your fellow man (social welfare programs).  A group who supports sensible foreign policy not guided by religious mandates (no more blank checks to Israel).  A group who supports responsible fiscal policy (bring the deficit under control, raise taxes to do it if you must, including taxing the rich and corporations).

Good luck finding that in America though.  The media finds it much easier to paint America as a Red team and Blue team slugging it out from diametrically opposed positions, it's much better for ratings.
2013-04-23 10:28:46 AM  
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Smackledorfer: Repeating that quote in lieu of discussing an issue on its merits is asinine.

Then please. discuss the issue at hand. Bloomberg says ""But we live in a complex word where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change."

Agree or disagree, and why?


Well to start with, I don't have to speak to issue A to point out that someone's comment about it is asinine.  Surely you understand that.

The phrase "I like apples because freedom is good" doesn't require me to say whether I like apples or not and why as a response. I am well within reason to simply say "your statement is meaningless, moran".  In fact, you will note that your own response to my post didn't discuss what I said in my post either.  Unless one lives in an anarchistic society with no justice system whatsoever, there will always be an infringement on freedoms in favor of security. But in any event, challenge accepted.


Interpretations of the constitution have always changed over the years and as the world changed. His statement is correct in that regard. I bet that for 99% of people if we pored over the history of the nation we could find at least one slight adjustment of interpretation with which they agreed.  One common one is the 4th amendment, something that has changed quite a bit over the years, in some areas granting us more protections and in others less.

I don't, however, believe that rare instances like the Boston marathon bombing or school mass shootings are a good enough reason to justify such reinterpretation, and am not a fan of Bloomberg in general.
2013-04-23 10:23:29 AM  
1 votes:

Burr: jaybeezey: will still vote him in the next elections

Question for NYC farkers.  Has he done any good while elected?  Like, improved schools, cleaned up the city?


I'll leave this here....

Bloomberg is the 25th richest man in America and has instituted and defended a racially-motivated "stop and frisk" campaign on the streets of New York, as well as overseen countless instances of police misconduct and brutality.  Yet for some reason that I won't mention because threadjacking, he's lionized in some progressive circles.

I think he's dangerous, maybe even moreso than Mitt Romney, because he actually pays lip service to populist liberal sentiments, which would allow him to get away with more if he ever bought achieved national office.
2013-04-23 10:22:01 AM  
1 votes:

Pants full of macaroni!!: Why no one has punched this guy in the face yet is anyone's guess.


Because the guy is surrounded by a security force second only to the President?
2013-04-23 10:16:06 AM  
1 votes:

FLMountainMan: This guy has to give partisans fits.  He presides over the second-most segregated city in America and the one with the greatest income inequality, however that city is also the cultural capital for the America Left.  He's a successful businessman, but he also believes in heavy government regulation.  He's big government, but in both a fascist and leftist sort of way.


Hm, the right is usually ranting about Detroit or Chicago or San Francisco or Hollywood or even Boston, I never heard New York being the "capital of the left".
2013-04-23 10:14:03 AM  
1 votes:
"Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms." Bloomberg said. "And I am one of them. Freedom is dangerous!"

/okay, I added the last part.
2013-04-23 10:13:01 AM  
1 votes:

Smackledorfer: Oldiron_79: Bravo Two: "Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin

THIS

Neither is worth much without some of the other. Repeating that quote in lieu of discussing an issue on its merits is asinine.

I think Ben would agree, considering he wasn't an anarchist.


Security is best done up to the point where it begins to infringe on the freedoms and rights of the individual. Period.

I don't accept that liberty must necessarily be infringed just so I can feel safe. All we've proven so far in doing so is that people still threaten our safety while we continue to have our rights eroded in the name of trying to stop them. It's proven not to work so far, so I'm loathe to continue down that path.
2013-04-23 10:12:43 AM  
1 votes:
I always knew he never stopped being republican.
2013-04-23 10:12:17 AM  
1 votes:
The scary thing isn't that he thinks that way. The scary thing is that he will say these things out loud without realizing that he sounds like the greatest oppressor in the state and people will still vote him in the next elections.
2013-04-23 10:12:14 AM  
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Burr: "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience."

-C.S. Lewis

I like that. I like most of what C.S. Lewis wrote on matters of morality, but I hadn't run across this quote. Where is it from?


I don't know where exactly (I have heard it before).  I keep getting pointed to "God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics", but I haven't found proof.
2013-04-23 10:09:19 AM  
1 votes:
The goverment exists to protect my freedoms, not my person nor my income.

This is the exact opposite of what you're supposed to be doing, Bloomy.
2013-04-23 10:08:13 AM  
1 votes:
Why no one has punched this guy in the face yet is anyone's guess.
2013-04-23 10:04:45 AM  
1 votes:
Can you imagine what Patrick Henry, with cane in hand would physically do to this puffed up popinjay?
2013-04-23 10:04:30 AM  
1 votes:
We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms.
We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms.
We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms.
We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms.
We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms.

Someone in yesterday's "I h(e)a(r)t(e) NY" thread said NYPD doesn't believe in the Constitution/Bill of Rights/whatever, and I thought he was exaggerating. I see I was wrong.
2013-04-23 10:03:25 AM  
1 votes:

Burr: "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience."

-C.S. Lewis


Stolen and quoted.
2013-04-23 10:02:18 AM  
1 votes:
Dang, I might have to keep this Mayor douchebag in mind when i start biatching about Parking/Traffic in Austin, lol!

I am quickly starting to feel bad for New Yorkers and grateful that I don't live there. No city is perfect, but damn...this Bloomberg dude has got to be stopped!
2013-04-23 09:58:47 AM  
1 votes:
02varvara.files.wordpress.com
2013-04-23 09:55:15 AM  
1 votes:

Bravo Two: "Those who give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither." Ben Franklin


THIS
2013-04-23 09:55:01 AM  
1 votes:
It's good that the people will serve as a referendum on opinions like these come election time.

/Here's hoping the people call bs
2013-04-23 09:51:19 AM  
1 votes:

I'm an Egyptian!: How about no? Does no work for you?


Hasn't worked for him in the past, though I do so enjoy seeing his massive poutrage when the courts smack him down.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report