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.

(RealClear)   Secretary of State John Kerry to sign controversial UN arms treaty...even after the Senate said it would never ratify it. So, basically he's performing diplomatic masturbation   (realclear.com) divider line 190
    More: Asinine, arms trade treaty, combat aircraft, United Nations General Assembly  
•       •       •

736 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Sep 2013 at 10:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



190 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-25 09:15:37 AM  
So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?
 
2013-09-25 09:17:27 AM  
GOP-like behavior detected
 
2013-09-25 09:18:46 AM  
So basically he's mimicking what House Republicans have been doing every single day since 2010
 
2013-09-25 09:19:18 AM  
I don't know how they expect to get decent ratings with this political theater now that the new seasons have started.
 
2013-09-25 09:22:42 AM  
And of course the wingnuts are using this to claim the UN is coming for your guns
 
2013-09-25 09:27:46 AM  

SilentStrider: And of course the wingnuts are using this to claim the UN is coming for your guns


I thought those would be collected at the FEMA camps?
 
2013-09-25 09:28:12 AM  
Three Crooked Squirrels [TotalFark]

GOP-like behavior detected


As he ignores kerry/obama pushing to send crates of weapons to al qaeda
 
2013-09-25 09:29:31 AM  

Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?


Yes, because only one of these two sides is actively cheerleading for an economic catastrophe just to spite the other side.
 
2013-09-25 09:29:38 AM  

OnlyM3: Three Crooked Squirrels [TotalFark]

GOP-like behavior detected

As he ignores kerry/obama pushing to send crates of weapons to al qaeda


He's reaching across the aisle and trying the GOP plan.
 
2013-09-25 09:30:29 AM  
FTFA: Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the most vocal opponents of the treaty, sent a letter to Kerry declaring it "dead in the water,"

If you take your policy cues from Inhofe, a global climate change denier and birfer who can't stand the thought of women or gay people serving in the military, believes there is no separation of church and state, and also has gone on record as saying the 9/11 attacks were God's punishment for America, there isn't much anyone can do for you.
 
2013-09-25 09:32:18 AM  

Diogenes: I don't know how they expect to get decent ratings with this political theater now that the new seasons have started.


C-Span is socialist tv.  Ratings are not necessary for renewal of bad programs...just like British TV.
 
2013-09-25 09:33:10 AM  

Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?


Why, they ARE both the same! That's AMAZING. HOW did I not see this before?

Now explain to the class why the Senate isn't going to ratify it.
 
2013-09-25 09:35:29 AM  

OnlyM3: Three Crooked Squirrels [TotalFark]

GOP-like behavior detected

As he ignores kerry/obama pushing to send crates of weapons to al qaeda


Settle down.  We needed a new Reagan.  A Democrat Reagan.  Quit complaining when he starts gun running.  Maybe we'll get a neat video game out of it like the old Contra.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-25 09:38:34 AM  

OnlyM3: As he ignores kerry/obama pushing to send crates of weapons to al qaeda


You mean McCain?
 
2013-09-25 09:39:46 AM  

King Something: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Yes, because only one of these two sides is actively cheerleading for an economic catastrophe just to spite the other side.


Yep.  The GOP wants to destroy the economy and ruin America - all because the country elected a Black man to the presidency.  It is amazing how liberals make themselves look like complete jackasses considering how wise and erudite their observations are.
 
2013-09-25 09:42:23 AM  

Lando Lincoln: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Why, they ARE both the same! That's AMAZING. HOW did I not see this before?

Now explain to the class why the Senate isn't going to ratify it.


Oh, I'm sure in your narrative it has to do with one side or the other making villainous, partisan plans to destroy America.
 
2013-09-25 09:44:44 AM  

Lucky LaRue: Oh, I'm sure in your narrative it has to do with one side or the other making villainous, partisan plans to destroy America.


No, my narrative has to do with the Senate not ratifying it because the NRA doesn't want them to. And the NRA doesn't want them to because they're nutjobs.
 
2013-09-25 09:49:47 AM  

Lando Lincoln: And the NRA doesn't want them to because they're nutjobs bought and paid for by gun manufacturers.


FTFY
 
2013-09-25 09:50:43 AM  
buuuut republicans in the house repealing obamacare 42 times *when it would never pass the senate by enough votes to override a presidential veto... that's just A-OK!

IOKIYAR


*and counting
 
2013-09-25 09:52:07 AM  

OnlyM3: Three Crooked Squirrels [TotalFark]

GOP-like behavior detected

As he ignores kerry/obama pushing to send crates of weapons to al qaeda


john mccain wants to arm the syrian opposition. are you saying john mccain wants to send crates of weapons to al qaeda?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-25 09:54:05 AM  

Lucky LaRue: Oh, I'm sure in your narrative it has to do with one side or the other making villainous, partisan plans to destroy America.


That and reality.  You haven't been paying attention for the last few years have you?
 
2013-09-25 09:54:53 AM  

vpb: OnlyM3: As he ignores kerry/obama pushing to send crates of weapons to al qaeda

You mean McCain?


Holy shiat---Kerry and Obama are running guns to MCCAIN?
 
2013-09-25 09:56:52 AM  

Lucky LaRue: King Something: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Yes, because only one of these two sides is actively cheerleading for an economic catastrophe just to spite the other side.

Yep.  The GOP wants to destroy the economy and ruin America - all because the country elected a Black man to the presidency.  It is amazing how liberals make themselves look like complete jackasses considering how wise and erudite their observations are.


3.bp.blogspot.com
O-HO! Is funny because it's true! O-ho-ho-ho!

/and if you still don't think it's true, compare the GOP's behavior over the last five years or so to their behavior over the previous hundred
//specifically, compare which of those tow time periods has more examples of the GOP filibustering their own legislation just because the Democratic President has publicly stated that he approves of that legislation; voting to defund the teleprompter; or turning the raising of the debt ceiling from an ordinary and mundane procedure which passed with less fanfare and debate than the renaming of post offices into a major bargaining chip in order to get no less than 98% of what they want, in exchange for allowing the country to pay for spending that they themselves authorized
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-25 09:59:41 AM  

Somacandra: vpb: OnlyM3: As he ignores kerry/obama pushing to send crates of weapons to al qaeda

You mean McCain?

Holy shiat---Kerry and Obama are running guns to MCCAIN?


It's worse than you thought.  Soon it will be "Old man shoots at cloud".
 
2013-09-25 10:00:44 AM  

FlashHarry: buuuut republicans in the house repealing obamacare 42 times *when it would never pass the senate by enough votes to override a presidential veto... that's just A-OK!

IOKIYAR


*and counting


An old British judge once said that the difference between the British Judges and American Judges was that British Judges will say as little as possible, to the point of not ruling on anything, in the hopes that they don't say something wrong.  American Judges, however, will say as much as possible in the hopes of saying something right.

The House are the American Judges.  The Senate the British Judges.  One is hyper-active, and the other is paralyzed.
 
2013-09-25 10:03:11 AM  
A State official said the treaty would "reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," while protecting gun rights.

You mean like transferring weapons to Mexican drug cartels or Al Qaeda operatives? Yeah, someone probably should put a stop to that.
 
2013-09-25 10:07:50 AM  

vpb: Lucky LaRue: Oh, I'm sure in your narrative it has to do with one side or the other making villainous, partisan plans to destroy America.

That and reality.  You haven't been paying attention for the last few years have you?


Oh, I've been paying attention, and I'm not saying the far right aren't a bunch of sleazy shiats with an anti-Obama agenda.  I am just observing that (1) not everyone in the GOP is on the far right, (2) the far left is just as bat-shiat insane with their "the GOP wants to destroy the economy to spite Obama" narrative, and (3) not all Democrats is far left.

It never ceases to amaze me that, whenever I talk to herbal teabaggers, they are convinced that all Democrats think like they do and are suspicious of the moderates in their party... it is strikingly similar to the teabaggers on the right that have the audacity to label McConnell a RINO.
 
2013-09-25 10:09:12 AM  

Somacandra: FTFA: Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the most vocal opponents of the treaty, sent a letter to Kerry declaring it "dead in the water,"

If you take your policy cues from Inhofe, a global climate change denier and birfer who can't stand the thought of women or gay people serving in the military, believes there is no separation of church and state, and also has gone on record as saying the 9/11 attacks were God's punishment for America, there isn't much anyone can do for you.


THIS!

And just how is this political theater? I always thought that the Executive branch would think a treaty is a good idea nad send it to Congress to reject or ratify it. Congress does not get to negotiate the terms of the treaty. They ratify it or reject it. Simple as that.

Here's the rub.
The chance of adoption by the U.S. is slim. A two-thirds majority would be needed in the Senate to ratify.

There is no chance in hell that any treaty no matter what it is will get through the current legislature.

So the Sec of State should just stop doing his job?
 
2013-09-25 10:09:41 AM  

Lucky LaRue: King Something: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Yes, because only one of these two sides is actively cheerleading for an economic catastrophe just to spite the other side.

Yep.  The GOP wants to destroy the economy and ruin America - all because the country elected a Black man to the presidency.  It is amazing how liberals make themselves look like complete jackasses considering how wise and erudite their observations are.


The GOP purposefully got the credit rating downgraded and is threatening the same if we continue the awful practice of giving more US citizens health insurance

Your argument is invalid
 
2013-09-25 10:11:35 AM  

Nabb1: A State official said the treaty would "reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," while protecting gun rights.

You mean like transferring weapons to Mexican drug cartels or Al Qaeda operatives? Yeah, someone probably should put a stop to that.


I agree. The Bush family should have never done those things, either
 
2013-09-25 10:17:43 AM  
I love how 20-30 sane, humorous, rational snarks are found, while all the dipshiats I already have on ignore. Well played fark. Carry on.
 
2013-09-25 10:18:25 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: Lucky LaRue: King Something: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Yes, because only one of these two sides is actively cheerleading for an economic catastrophe just to spite the other side.

Yep.  The GOP wants to destroy the economy and ruin America - all because the country elected a Black man to the presidency.  It is amazing how liberals make themselves look like complete jackasses considering how wise and erudite their observations are.

The GOP purposefully got the credit rating downgraded and is threatening the same if we continue the awful practice of giving more US citizens health insurance

Your argument is invalid


You are a product of your culture that is steeped in the mythology of good-vs-evil, light-vs-dark, god-vs-satan.  It is only natural that you orient your political views along similar black-and-white dichotomies.  Really, it isn't that I don't understand.  I'm just a little disappointed is all.
 
2013-09-25 10:27:54 AM  

nekom: Lando Lincoln: And the NRA doesn't want them to because they're nutjobs bought and paid for by gun manufacturers.

FTFY


It's the other-way 'round:  The gun manufacturers are bought and paid for by the NRA, because the NRA has the muscle to shut down a gun manufacturer that steps out of line, even the biggest, most prestigious manufacturers.

See:   Smith & Wesson Agreement of 2000.

Moral of the story:  Don't piss off your customers.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-25 10:29:23 AM  

Lucky LaRue: Oh, I've been paying attention, and I'm not saying the far right aren't a bunch of sleazy shiats with an anti-Obama agenda.  I am just observing that (1) not everyone in the GOP is on the far right, (2) the far left is just as bat-shiat insane with their "the GOP wants to destroy the economy to spite Obama" narrative, and (3) not all Democrats is far left.

It never ceases to amaze me that, whenever I talk to herbal teabaggers, they are convinced that all Democrats think like they do and are suspicious of the moderates in their party... it is strikingly similar to the teabaggers on the right that have the audacity to label McConnell a RINO.


The GOPers who aren't on the far right aren't in control, and the GOP appears to be preparing to damage the economy to spite Obamacare.

What effect do you think a government shutdown and a default will have?
 
2013-09-25 10:38:49 AM  

Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?


Well is trying to stop a bad law from affecting the American people, in a very attention whorish way. The other is undermining the credibility of the country he is servicing in the eyes of the international community, in a very attention whorish way.


So if Cruz makes it happens he helps the American people, there is no up side of what Kerry is doing.

So, vote Republican
 
2013-09-25 10:39:25 AM  

Lucky LaRue: Peter von Nostrand: Lucky LaRue: King Something: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Yes, because only one of these two sides is actively cheerleading for an economic catastrophe just to spite the other side.

Yep.  The GOP wants to destroy the economy and ruin America - all because the country elected a Black man to the presidency.  It is amazing how liberals make themselves look like complete jackasses considering how wise and erudite their observations are.

The GOP purposefully got the credit rating downgraded and is threatening the same if we continue the awful practice of giving more US citizens health insurance

Your argument is invalid

You are a product of your culture that is steeped in the mythology of good-vs-evil, light-vs-dark, god-vs-satan.  It is only natural that you orient your political views along similar black-and-white dichotomies.  Really, it isn't that I don't understand.  I'm just a little disappointed is all.


So you jerked yourself off thinking that little bit made you sound smart and above the fray

An independent. On Fark
 
2013-09-25 10:45:43 AM  
Controversial to those who rely on paranoia politics.
 
2013-09-25 10:46:04 AM  
The only thing that makes the UN Arms Export treaty controversial is the constant stream of paranoid delusional bullshiat being spewed by FOX news and it's cohorts and allies in conservative media.

If you wanted to start the process of disarming terror groups like Al Queda, you'd WANT something like an arms export agreement amongst the major players in international arms sales.

Farking morans....
 
2013-09-25 10:47:45 AM  
So, without clicking on a Fox News link, WTF is this particular arms treaty about anyway?
 
2013-09-25 10:49:01 AM  
"John Kerry" and "masturbation": two concepts you never want to see in close proximity to each other.
 
2013-09-25 10:50:06 AM  

Lucky LaRue: King Something: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Yes, because only one of these two sides is actively cheerleading for an economic catastrophe just to spite the other side.

Yep.  The GOP wants to destroy the economy and ruin America - all because the country elected a Black man to the presidency.


In fairness, it's the teabaggers that want that, they just happen to control the GOP narrative at this time due to weak leadership.

  It is amazing how liberals make themselves look like complete jackasses considering how wise and erudite their observations are.
 
2013-09-25 10:50:50 AM  
"The administration is wasting precious time ..."  - from the party that has spent the last 3 years voting over and over again to try to defund the same healthcare law.  Well, that and abortion bills.
 
2013-09-25 10:56:06 AM  

Nabb1: A State official said the treaty would "reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," while protecting gun rights.

You mean like transferring weapons to Mexican drug cartels or Al Qaeda operatives? Yeah, someone probably should put a stop to that.


Remember, boys and girls:

* Everyone should be able to buy whatever weapons they want, as many as they want, no questions asked.
* Fast and Furious did something wrong.
 
2013-09-25 10:56:08 AM  

Lucky LaRue: (3) not all Democrats is far left.


One Democrat is far left. One. Oops, strike that. He's not a Democrat. He's an Independent.
 
2013-09-25 10:57:00 AM  

Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?


Kerry's political theater will have zero effect. Cruz and the House radicals' theater may shut down our government and default on our national debt and cause our economy to collapse.

But clearly, BSAB.
 
2013-09-25 10:58:55 AM  

King Something: Lucky LaRue: Uh.. I'm a Democrat, dipshiat, not an independent

Sure you are. You're as much a Democrat as I am a chupacabra.


I wonder if you read my earlier comment about how the far-left it is suspicious of the moderates in their party and how their paranoia is strikingly similar to the teabaggers on the right that have the audacity to label McConnell a RINO..  I kind of hope not, because the irony in your statement is priceless.
 
2013-09-25 11:01:07 AM  
Gather round children, and see how FW:FW:FW:FW emails get made.

TheUsualSuspect
The bigger issue here is, if the United Nations can dictate laws in the USA regarding firearms they can dictate laws about anything!  Over my dead body.
I wouldn't care if the law was about eating spinach I'm against it now and forever amen.  As Senator Obama co-sponsored a bill called the "Global Poverty Act" that would have given the UN the right to tax the USA .8% of the US GDP for distribution to poor nations (and greedy UN officials) around the world.  That's all I had to know about OHB right there, he's a one worlder then and a one worlder now.  If I had my way I would opt of of the United Nations altogether

@TheUsualSuspect
I did not know about the Global Poverty Act. Thank you for your input - we can not afford to feed the world.


Check it out.  He's OHB now.  Conservatives have their own in-jokes.
 
2013-09-25 11:01:43 AM  

theknuckler_33: Cruz and the House radicals' theater may shut down our governmen

t

Uh.. no.  Cruz struck a deal with Reid.  He's up there because Reid gave him permission to go full derp and pretend to filibuster.  He's only there as long as Harry wants him there and, at the end of his rant, the bill will go to a simple majority vote and be rejected.
 
2013-09-25 11:01:43 AM  
If there was any doubt that the GOP was catering to conspiracy nuts it would be the opposition to this treaty.
 
2013-09-25 11:02:31 AM  

Fart_Machine: If there was any doubt that the GOP was catering to conspiracy nuts it would be the opposition to this treaty.


Agenda 21!
 
2013-09-25 11:03:30 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: A State official said the treaty would "reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," while protecting gun rights.

You mean like transferring weapons to Mexican drug cartels or Al Qaeda operatives? Yeah, someone probably should put a stop to that.

I agree. The Bush family should have never done those things, either


Okay. So what?
 
2013-09-25 11:04:17 AM  

Lucky LaRue: theknuckler_33: Cruz and the House radicals' theater may shut down our government

Uh.. no.  Cruz struck a deal with Reid.  He's up there because Reid gave him permission to go full derp and pretend to filibuster.  He's only there as long as Harry wants him there and, at the end of his rant, the bill will go to a simple majority vote and be rejected.


I was referring to the larger 'defund obamacare in the CR' situation. But yea, if you narrow it down to Cruz's little speech, then yea, it won't have any effect either.
 
2013-09-25 11:06:43 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Check it out.  He's OHB now.  Conservatives have their own in-jokes.


Oarack Hussein Baobob
 
2013-09-25 11:07:30 AM  
I mean Oarrack

farm7.staticflickr.com
 
2013-09-25 11:09:51 AM  

Jackson Herring: I mean Oarrack

[farm7.staticflickr.com image 640x427]


www.mainstreetvacuum.com
You mean Orek Obummer! I knew he sucked!
 
2013-09-25 11:09:56 AM  
The Secretary of State works for the President, not the Senate. Kerry is doing his job. What the Senate chooses to do about the treaty after that is not his problem.
 
2013-09-25 11:10:25 AM  

Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: A State official said the treaty would "reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," while protecting gun rights.

You mean like transferring weapons to Mexican drug cartels or Al Qaeda operatives? Yeah, someone probably should put a stop to that.

I agree. The Bush family should have never done those things, either

Okay. So what?


I guess I should have asked you the same thing

Okay. So what?
 
2013-09-25 11:11:37 AM  

Aristocles: OnlyM3: Three Crooked Squirrels [TotalFark]

GOP-like behavior detected

As he ignores kerry/obama pushing to send crates of weapons to al qaeda

Don't forget, Holder had no problem funneling guns to Mexican drug lords with no one tracking said arms.

I guess BOB, Kerry, and the dems would rather see guns in the hands of terrorists and drug dealers than law abiding citizens.


Who's Bob? And what has he got to do with this?
 
2013-09-25 11:12:30 AM  

Aristocles: Rapmaster2000: Gather round children, and see how FW:FW:FW:FW emails get made.

TheUsualSuspect
The bigger issue here is, if the United Nations can dictate laws in the USA regarding firearms they can dictate laws about anything!  Over my dead body.
I wouldn't care if the law was about eating spinach I'm against it now and forever amen.  As Senator Obama co-sponsored a bill called the "Global Poverty Act" that would have given the UN the right to tax the USA .8% of the US GDP for distribution to poor nations (and greedy UN officials) around the world.  That's all I had to know about OHB right there, he's a one worlder then and a one worlder now.  If I had my way I would opt of of the United Nations altogether

@TheUsualSuspect
I did not know about the Global Poverty Act. Thank you for your input - we can not afford to feed the world.

Check it out.  He's OHB now.  Conservatives have their own in-jokes.

That's all you got out of the comment... "OHB"??

Farklibs have some real thinking to do about the detrimental effects of BOB's failed plans.


Old and Busted: BOB.
New Hotness:  OHB

Get with the times, grandpa.
 
2013-09-25 11:12:53 AM  
Is this the UN treaty gun nuts say is going to ban guns in the US?
 
2013-09-25 11:13:18 AM  
Oh good,  Lucky LaRue is trying their good old-fashioned "both sides are bad so vote third party even if you agree with the Democratic party more often on substantive issues."
 
2013-09-25 11:14:04 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Aristocles: Rapmaster2000: Gather round children, and see how FW:FW:FW:FW emails get made.

TheUsualSuspect
The bigger issue here is, if the United Nations can dictate laws in the USA regarding firearms they can dictate laws about anything!  Over my dead body.
I wouldn't care if the law was about eating spinach I'm against it now and forever amen.  As Senator Obama co-sponsored a bill called the "Global Poverty Act" that would have given the UN the right to tax the USA .8% of the US GDP for distribution to poor nations (and greedy UN officials) around the world.  That's all I had to know about OHB right there, he's a one worlder then and a one worlder now.  If I had my way I would opt of of the United Nations altogether

@TheUsualSuspect
I did not know about the Global Poverty Act. Thank you for your input - we can not afford to feed the world.

Check it out.  He's OHB now.  Conservatives have their own in-jokes.

That's all you got out of the comment... "OHB"??

Farklibs have some real thinking to do about the detrimental effects of BOB's failed plans.

Old and Busted: BOB.
New Hotness:  OHB

Get with the times, grandpa.


I'm partisan to Oblahma. Not because I think they oppose everything he does due to race, though
 
2013-09-25 11:14:35 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: A State official said the treaty would "reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," while protecting gun rights.

You mean like transferring weapons to Mexican drug cartels or Al Qaeda operatives? Yeah, someone probably should put a stop to that.

I agree. The Bush family should have never done those things, either


The BATFE running guns under Bush stopped when they realized how corrupt and undependable the Mexican authorities were.

The BATFE under Holder/Obama stopped after they broke enough eggs making omletes to get several hundred people killed including Brian Terry and got caught at it. They were Obama's "Iron River".
 
2013-09-25 11:15:34 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: A State official said the treaty would "reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," while protecting gun rights.

You mean like transferring weapons to Mexican drug cartels or Al Qaeda operatives? Yeah, someone probably should put a stop to that.

I agree. The Bush family should have never done those things, either

Okay. So what?

I guess I should have asked you the same thing

Okay. So what?


You brought up the b-b-but Bush. Do you get tired of that? It's sort of a non-point. It's like something you reflexively spit up into the thread.
 
2013-09-25 11:16:25 AM  

ex-nuke: Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: A State official said the treaty would "reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," while protecting gun rights.

You mean like transferring weapons to Mexican drug cartels or Al Qaeda operatives? Yeah, someone probably should put a stop to that.

I agree. The Bush family should have never done those things, either

The BATFE running guns under Bush stopped when they realized how corrupt and undependable the Mexican authorities were.

The BATFE under Holder/Obama stopped after they broke enough eggs making omletes to get several hundred people killed including Brian Terry and got caught at it. They were Obama's "Iron River".


This is Obama's "Fast and the Furious:  Tokyo Drift".
 
2013-09-25 11:16:30 AM  

Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: A State official said the treaty would "reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," while protecting gun rights.

You mean like transferring weapons to Mexican drug cartels or Al Qaeda operatives? Yeah, someone probably should put a stop to that.

I agree. The Bush family should have never done those things, either

Okay. So what?

I guess I should have asked you the same thing

Okay. So what?

You brought up the b-b-but Bush. Do you get tired of that? It's sort of a non-point. It's like something you reflexively spit up into the thread.


He's saying people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
 
2013-09-25 11:16:32 AM  

stuhayes2010: Is this the UN treaty gun nuts say is going to ban guns in the US?


Yeah, that's the one. Of course it wouldn't do any such thing, but when has reality ever stopped the NRA from being against something?
 
2013-09-25 11:16:52 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Oh good,  Lucky LaRue is trying their good old-fashioned "both sides are bad so vote third party even if you agree with the Democratic party more often on substantive issues."


There's nothing worse than someone who just refuses to join the Democratic cause wholeheartedly, is there?
 
2013-09-25 11:17:38 AM  

FarkedOver: Jackson Herring: I mean Oarrack

[farm7.staticflickr.com image 640x427]

[www.mainstreetvacuum.com image 500x500]
You mean Orek Obummer! I knew he sucked!



No, it's baRick Ocasek.

darkroom.baltimoresun.com

You might think he's crazy.
 
2013-09-25 11:17:42 AM  

ex-nuke: Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: A State official said the treaty would "reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," while protecting gun rights.

You mean like transferring weapons to Mexican drug cartels or Al Qaeda operatives? Yeah, someone probably should put a stop to that.

I agree. The Bush family should have never done those things, either

The BATFE running guns under Bush stopped when they realized how corrupt and undependable the Mexican authorities were.

The BATFE under Holder/Obama stopped after they broke enough eggs making omletes to get several hundred people killed including Brian Terry and got caught at it. They were Obama's "Iron River".


Remember folks before this cartels didnt have guns and had to use spitballs and harsh language.
 
2013-09-25 11:18:25 AM  

theknuckler_33: FarkedOver: Jackson Herring: I mean Oarrack

[farm7.staticflickr.com image 640x427]

[www.mainstreetvacuum.com image 500x500]
You mean Orek Obummer! I knew he sucked!


No, it's baRick Ocasek.

[darkroom.baltimoresun.com image 267x326]

You might think he's crazy.


That farker is always after his best friends girl!
 
2013-09-25 11:18:34 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Oh good,  Lucky LaRue is trying their good old-fashioned "both sides are bad so vote third party even if you agree with the Democratic party more often on substantive issues."


You probably didn't bother to read my earlier comment, either, about how the far-left it is suspicious of the moderates in their party and how their paranoia is strikingly similar to the teabaggers on the right that have the audacity to label McConnell a RINO..

I am really starting to enjoy you guys tripping over yourselves to prove my point.
 
2013-09-25 11:18:37 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: A State official said the treaty would "reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," while protecting gun rights.

You mean like transferring weapons to Mexican drug cartels or Al Qaeda operatives? Yeah, someone probably should put a stop to that.

I agree. The Bush family should have never done those things, either

Okay. So what?

I guess I should have asked you the same thing

Okay. So what?

You brought up the b-b-but Bush. Do you get tired of that? It's sort of a non-point. It's like something you reflexively spit up into the thread.

He's saying people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


Ooooooh, right, "Those who criticize Obama all unquestionably supported Bush at all times!" That's interesting since I voted against the guy twice.
 
2013-09-25 11:19:30 AM  

dittybopper: nekom: Lando Lincoln: And the NRA doesn't want them to because they're nutjobs bought and paid for by gun manufacturers.

FTFY

It's the other-way 'round:  The gun manufacturers are bought and paid for by the NRA, because the NRA has the muscle to shut down a gun manufacturer that steps out of line, even the biggest, most prestigious manufacturers.

See:   Smith & Wesson Agreement of 2000.

Moral of the story:  Don't piss off your customers.


Alternate interpretation: The cartel decided to rein in one of its members that broke with the established trade strategy, and directed its agents within the NRA to establish the correct opinion within the group, thus bringing the now-diminished member back into the fold to serve as an example to any others that might consider leaving.

Just speculation, of course.
 
2013-09-25 11:19:58 AM  

Lucky LaRue: Peter von Nostrand: Lucky LaRue: King Something: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Yes, because only one of these two sides is actively cheerleading for an economic catastrophe just to spite the other side.

Yep.  The GOP wants to destroy the economy and ruin America - all because the country elected a Black man to the presidency.  It is amazing how liberals make themselves look like complete jackasses considering how wise and erudite their observations are.

The GOP purposefully got the credit rating downgraded and is threatening the same if we continue the awful practice of giving more US citizens health insurance

Your argument is invalid

You are a product of your culture that is steeped in the mythology of good-vs-evil, light-vs-dark, god-vs-satan.  It is only natural that you orient your political views along similar black-and-white dichotomies.  Really, it isn't that I don't understand.  I'm just a little disappointed is all.


If the GOP haven't convinced you of the reality of evil, I don't know what will.
 
2013-09-25 11:22:01 AM  

Lucky LaRue: cameroncrazy1984: Oh good,  Lucky LaRue is trying their good old-fashioned "both sides are bad so vote third party even if you agree with the Democratic party more often on substantive issues."

You probably didn't bother to read my earlier comment, either, about how the far-left it is suspicious of the moderates in their party and how their paranoia is strikingly similar to the teabaggers on the right that have the audacity to label McConnell a RINO..

I am really starting to enjoy you guys tripping over yourselves to prove my point.


Except that the far left doesn't have the clout to do anything as opposed to the GOP where moderates are an endangered species being hunted into extinction.
 
2013-09-25 11:22:50 AM  
I'll bet Reid gets is passed on the 41st try
 
2013-09-25 11:22:54 AM  

FarkedOver: Jackson Herring: I mean Oarrack

[farm7.staticflickr.com image 640x427]

[www.mainstreetvacuum.com image 500x500]
You mean Orek Obummer! I knew he sucked!


I giggled outloud.

Also, another tangent: What does IOKNAR or wahtever that acronym mean?
 
2013-09-25 11:24:52 AM  

theknuckler_33: You might think he's crazy.


He kep' it going, 'til the sun fell down. He kep' it, going.
 
2013-09-25 11:24:56 AM  

Fart_Machine: Lucky LaRue: cameroncrazy1984: Oh good,  Lucky LaRue is trying their good old-fashioned "both sides are bad so vote third party even if you agree with the Democratic party more often on substantive issues."

You probably didn't bother to read my earlier comment, either, about how the far-left it is suspicious of the moderates in their party and how their paranoia is strikingly similar to the teabaggers on the right that have the audacity to label McConnell a RINO..

I am really starting to enjoy you guys tripping over yourselves to prove my point.

Except that the far left doesn't have the clout to do anything as opposed to the GOP where moderates are an endangered species being hunted into extinction.


You are right on that point.  While the far-left is just as embarrassing to the Democrats as the far-right is to the Republicans, they by-and-large have no meaningful political leverage.
 
2013-09-25 11:25:29 AM  

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: A State official said the treaty would "reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," while protecting gun rights.

You mean like transferring weapons to Mexican drug cartels or Al Qaeda operatives? Yeah, someone probably should put a stop to that.

I agree. The Bush family should have never done those things, either

Okay. So what?

I guess I should have asked you the same thing

Okay. So what?

You brought up the b-b-but Bush. Do you get tired of that? It's sort of a non-point. It's like something you reflexively spit up into the thread.

He's saying people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Ooooooh, right, "Those who criticize Obama all unquestionably supported Bush at all times!" That's interesting since I voted against the guy twice.


You can't seem to find anyone who admitted to voting for Bush nowadays.
 
2013-09-25 11:25:29 AM  
Remember, kids, it's a bad thing to engage in political theater.

Now, let's go repeal Obamacare for the 42nd time.
 
2013-09-25 11:25:52 AM  

I_C_Weener: Diogenes: I don't know how they expect to get decent ratings with this political theater now that the new seasons have started.

C-Span is socialist tv.  Ratings are not necessary for renewal of bad programs...just like British TV.


Then how come they get Sherlock and we get Ted Cruz reading "Green Eggs and Ham"? Thanks, Obama.
 
2013-09-25 11:26:41 AM  

LoneWolf343: Lucky LaRue: Peter von Nostrand: Lucky LaRue: King Something: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Yes, because only one of these two sides is actively cheerleading for an economic catastrophe just to spite the other side.

Yep.  The GOP wants to destroy the economy and ruin America - all because the country elected a Black man to the presidency.  It is amazing how liberals make themselves look like complete jackasses considering how wise and erudite their observations are.

The GOP purposefully got the credit rating downgraded and is threatening the same if we continue the awful practice of giving more US citizens health insurance

Your argument is invalid

You are a product of your culture that is steeped in the mythology of good-vs-evil, light-vs-dark, god-vs-satan.  It is only natural that you orient your political views along similar black-and-white dichotomies.  Really, it isn't that I don't understand.  I'm just a little disappointed is all.

If the GOP haven't convinced you of the reality of evil, I don't know what will.


Pol Pot was evil. The GOP that's just been dragged down into insanity and intellectual bankruptcy. There are surely some in their ranks who are bad people, but just like most Democrats, I think most of them think they are trying to move the country in the right direction.
 
2013-09-25 11:27:18 AM  

Summercat: What does IOKNAR or wahtever that acronym mean?


IOKIYAR. It's Okay If You're a Republican.
 
2013-09-25 11:28:25 AM  

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Oh good,  Lucky LaRue is trying their good old-fashioned "both sides are bad so vote third party even if you agree with the Democratic party more often on substantive issues."

There's nothing worse than someone who just refuses to join the Democratic cause wholeheartedly, is there?


Eh? That's not what I said. He (or she) is trying to posit that you should believe both sides are the same, despite all evidence to the contrary. Do YOU think that both sides are equal?
 
2013-09-25 11:28:29 AM  

Rain-Monkey: So basically he's mimicking what House Republicans have been doing every single day since 2010


Yes, our current Secretary of State is no better than the worst of the House Republicans. I agree with you.
 
2013-09-25 11:28:56 AM  
LoneWolf343:

If the GOP haven't convinced you of the reality of evil, I don't know what will.

kithmeme.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-25 11:29:44 AM  

Lucky LaRue: cameroncrazy1984: Oh good,  Lucky LaRue is trying their good old-fashioned "both sides are bad so vote third party even if you agree with the Democratic party more often on substantive issues."

You probably didn't bother to read my earlier comment, either, about how the far-left it is suspicious of the moderates in their party and how their paranoia is strikingly similar to the teabaggers on the right that have the audacity to label McConnell a RINO..

I am really starting to enjoy you guys tripping over yourselves to prove my point.


The Democrats don't do stupid things like repealing a law 42 times because they're afraid to be primaried by someone from the far-left. Explain to me again how both sides are equally the same?
 
2013-09-25 11:29:56 AM  

stuhayes2010: Is this the UN treaty gun nuts say is going to ban guns in the US?


Yep, and in capital letters, so it must be true.  However, my response to my gun nut friends was that it would never be ratified.  Looks like I was correct.
 
2013-09-25 11:30:11 AM  

Fart_Machine: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: A State official said the treaty would "reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," while protecting gun rights.

You mean like transferring weapons to Mexican drug cartels or Al Qaeda operatives? Yeah, someone probably should put a stop to that.

I agree. The Bush family should have never done those things, either

Okay. So what?

I guess I should have asked you the same thing

Okay. So what?

You brought up the b-b-but Bush. Do you get tired of that? It's sort of a non-point. It's like something you reflexively spit up into the thread.

He's saying people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Ooooooh, right, "Those who criticize Obama all unquestionably supported Bush at all times!" That's interesting since I voted against the guy twice.

You can't seem to find anyone who admitted to voting for Bush nowadays.


Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008 and for Gary Johnson in 2012. I voted Perot in1992 (not proud of it, but there it is) and didn't vote in 1996 because I was in law school and never bothered to send my absentee ballot back to SC. Any other questions on my voting.
 
2013-09-25 11:30:51 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Oh good,  Lucky LaRue is trying their good old-fashioned "both sides are bad so vote third party even if you agree with the Democratic party more often on substantive issues."

There's nothing worse than someone who just refuses to join the Democratic cause wholeheartedly, is there?

Eh? That's not what I said. He (or she) is trying to posit that you should believe both sides are the same, despite all evidence to the contrary. Do YOU think that both sides are equal?


If by "both sides" you mean that I am talking about the far-left and the far-right and by "the same" you are suggesting that I am implying that they are both bat-shiat insane comedic relief to the real political process that happens in the middle, then I suppose you have my position pretty well nailed down.
 
2013-09-25 11:30:53 AM  

Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008


You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.
 
2013-09-25 11:31:15 AM  

Summercat: FarkedOver: Jackson Herring: I mean Oarrack

[farm7.staticflickr.com image 640x427]

[www.mainstreetvacuum.com image 500x500]
You mean Orek Obummer! I knew he sucked!

I giggled outloud.

Also, another tangent: What does IOKNAR or wahtever that acronym mean?


I second this motion for acronym clarification.
...and would it kill yall to explain this whole "BOB" thing?
 
2013-09-25 11:31:24 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Well is trying to stop a bad law from affecting the American people, in a very attention whorish way. The other is undermining the credibility of the country he is servicing in the eyes of the international community, in a very attention whorish way.


So if Cruz makes it happens he helps the American people, there is no up side of what Kerry is doing.

So, vote Republican


How exactly is the ACA a "bad law?"  Please show your work.  Derp doesn't count as evidence.
 
2013-09-25 11:31:26 AM  
It's stupid diplomatic masturbation like this that makes the USA look like international liars and idiots. If it is foregone that our Senate will not ratify a treaty, it actually damages our international standing to sign that treaty. It makes us look dishonest. Kerry should know this, so he is knowingly acting in a way that will hurt the USA just to score political points. Someone please explain to me how Democrats materially differ from Republicans, again?
 
2013-09-25 11:31:41 AM  

Lucky LaRue: If by "both sides" you mean that I am talking about the far-left and the far-right and by "the same" you are suggesting that I am implying that they are both bat-shiat insane comedic relief to the real political process that happens in the middle, then I suppose you have my position pretty well nailed down


So your position is that the main leadership of the GOP is precisely the same as the fringe of the Democratic party. Okay, that's a little better.
 
2013-09-25 11:32:08 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: GOP-like behavior detected


and we're done.
 
2013-09-25 11:32:19 AM  

Silly_Sot: If it is foregone that our Senate will not ratify a treaty, it actually damages our international standing to sign that treaty. It makes us look dishonest.


You've got to be kidding. This is maybe the least illogical thing I've read today.
 
2013-09-25 11:33:14 AM  
Whoops, least logical, most illogical. Pick one.
 
2013-09-25 11:33:20 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Oh good,  Lucky LaRue is trying their good old-fashioned "both sides are bad so vote third party even if you agree with the Democratic party more often on substantive issues."

There's nothing worse than someone who just refuses to join the Democratic cause wholeheartedly, is there?

Eh? That's not what I said. He (or she) is trying to posit that you should believe both sides are the same, despite all evidence to the contrary. Do YOU think that both sides are equal?


Not strictly equal, no. I disagree with the DNC on many things, but they are not as dogmatically anti-intellectual as the GOP has become over the years. I have long loathed the modern two-party system, though.
 
2013-09-25 11:34:06 AM  
The 5 permanent security council members are the biggest gun runners in the world. This resolution isn't worth the strongly worded letters that the UN will eventually write when people walk all over it.
 
2013-09-25 11:34:46 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008

You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.


It was purely a protest gesture. I knew he had no chance, but could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. And Bush was winning Louisiana by a wide margin, anyway.
 
2013-09-25 11:34:48 AM  

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Oh good,  Lucky LaRue is trying their good old-fashioned "both sides are bad so vote third party even if you agree with the Democratic party more often on substantive issues."

There's nothing worse than someone who just refuses to join the Democratic cause wholeheartedly, is there?

Eh? That's not what I said. He (or she) is trying to posit that you should believe both sides are the same, despite all evidence to the contrary. Do YOU think that both sides are equal?

Not strictly equal, no. I disagree with the DNC on many things, but they are not as dogmatically anti-intellectual as the GOP has become over the years. I have long loathed the modern two-party system, though.


As evidenced by your voting for some pretty crazy candidates in the past.
 
2013-09-25 11:35:27 AM  

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008

You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.

It was purely a protest gesture. I knew he had no chance, but could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. And Bush was winning Louisiana by a wide margin, anyway.


Why couldn't you vote for Kerry? As far as I can tell the only real knock against him was that he was too boring.
 
2013-09-25 11:40:59 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008

You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.

It was purely a protest gesture. I knew he had no chance, but could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. And Bush was winning Louisiana by a wide margin, anyway.

Why couldn't you vote for Kerry? As far as I can tell the only real knock against him was that he was too boring.


A number of disagreements with his policies, but mainly it was John Edwards. He is a despicable human being. He made millions ruining the lives and careers of physicians by peddling junk science from whore "experts" whose theories have since been soundly rejected regarding mistakes by OBs allegedly causing cerebral palsy. There is no way I would vote for any ticket with an ambulance chasing scum bag like Edwards.
 
2013-09-25 11:41:17 AM  

Lando Lincoln: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Why, they ARE both the same! That's AMAZING. HOW did I not see this before?

Now explain to the class why the Senate isn't going to ratify it.


Please, allow me.  Ahem.
The powerful arms lobby in the United States has already voiced objections, fearful that it could infringe on individual gun rights within US borders.

Also:
United Nations

And, just to be thorough:
President (Barack) Obama
 
2013-09-25 11:41:27 AM  

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008

You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.

It was purely a protest gesture. I knew he had no chance, but could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. And Bush was winning Louisiana by a wide margin, anyway.


In 2008? I don't think I could vote for Bush or Kerry either...
 
2013-09-25 11:41:34 AM  

super_grass: The 5 permanent security council members are the biggest gun runners in the world. This resolution isn't worth the strongly worded letters that the UN will eventually write when people walk all over it.


I had no idea that the UK and France are among the 5 biggest gun runners in the world.
 
2013-09-25 11:43:17 AM  

Car_Ramrod: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008

You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.

It was purely a protest gesture. I knew he had no chance, but could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. And Bush was winning Louisiana by a wide margin, anyway.

In 2008? I don't think I could vote for Bush or Kerry either...


Oh yeah, that's a good point. He said 2008, not 2004. Paul was a crazy racist but apparently that's better than Obama or McCain? Wow.
 
2013-09-25 11:43:21 AM  

King Something: super_grass: The 5 permanent security council members are the biggest gun runners in the world. This resolution isn't worth the strongly worded letters that the UN will eventually write when people walk all over it.

I had no idea that the UK and France are among the 5 biggest gun runners in the world.


Nic Cage told me so. So it has to be right.
 
2013-09-25 11:43:28 AM  

Nabb1: LoneWolf343: Lucky LaRue: Peter von Nostrand: Lucky LaRue: King Something: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Yes, because only one of these two sides is actively cheerleading for an economic catastrophe just to spite the other side.

Yep.  The GOP wants to destroy the economy and ruin America - all because the country elected a Black man to the presidency.  It is amazing how liberals make themselves look like complete jackasses considering how wise and erudite their observations are.

The GOP purposefully got the credit rating downgraded and is threatening the same if we continue the awful practice of giving more US citizens health insurance

Your argument is invalid

You are a product of your culture that is steeped in the mythology of good-vs-evil, light-vs-dark, god-vs-satan.  It is only natural that you orient your political views along similar black-and-white dichotomies.  Really, it isn't that I don't understand.  I'm just a little disappointed is all.

If the GOP haven't convinced you of the reality of evil, I don't know what will.

Pol Pot was evil. The GOP that's just been dragged down into insanity and intellectual bankruptcy. There are surely some in their ranks who are bad people, but just like most Democrats, I think most of them think they are trying to move the country in the right direction.


Yeah, whatever helps you sleep at night, pal.
 
2013-09-25 11:46:11 AM  

Strangelove MD: ...and would it kill yall to explain this whole "BOB" thing?


BOB is a derogatory nickname for the president recently invented by a new gimmick account on fark dot com who shall remain nameless
 
2013-09-25 11:46:40 AM  

Lucky LaRue: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Oh good,  Lucky LaRue is trying their good old-fashioned "both sides are bad so vote third party even if you agree with the Democratic party more often on substantive issues."

There's nothing worse than someone who just refuses to join the Democratic cause wholeheartedly, is there?

Eh? That's not what I said. He (or she) is trying to posit that you should believe both sides are the same, despite all evidence to the contrary. Do YOU think that both sides are equal?

If by "both sides" you mean that I am talking about the far-left and the far-right and by "the same" you are suggesting that I am implying that they are both bat-shiat insane comedic relief to the real political process that happens in the middle, then I suppose you have my position pretty well nailed down.


But, I think everyone's point is that the "real political process" isn't happening between the moderates of each party. It's happening between the moderate Democrats (which is semi-redundant at this point) and the far-right Republicans.

Just saying "crazy people in both parties are embarrassing", while true, is a useless statement today. The crazy Republicans are holding the reigns of their party right now, while the crazy Democrats... I don't know what they're doing because they're not involved in anything of importance.

That's why people are reacting this way to your posts. Your point, while true, does not have any practical application to the political reality of today, and only serves to give the appearance that both Republicans and Democrats are equal in their shenanigans.
 
2013-09-25 11:47:45 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Car_Ramrod: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008

You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.

It was purely a protest gesture. I knew he had no chance, but could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. And Bush was winning Louisiana by a wide margin, anyway.

In 2008? I don't think I could vote for Bush or Kerry either...

Oh yeah, that's a good point. He said 2008, not 2004. Paul was a crazy racist but apparently that's better than Obama or McCain? Wow.


Whoops. In the car (not driving). Read that all wrong. "Racist"? David Duke is a racist. Y'all are funny sometimes.
 
2013-09-25 11:48:54 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: Lucky LaRue: King Something: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Yes, because only one of these two sides is actively cheerleading for an economic catastrophe just to spite the other side.

Yep.  The GOP wants to destroy the economy and ruin America - all because the country elected a Black man to the presidency.  It is amazing how liberals make themselves look like complete jackasses considering how wise and erudite their observations are.

The GOP purposefully got the credit rating downgraded and is threatening the same if we continue the awful practice of giving more US citizens health insurance

Your argument is invalid


So you are saying you never actuallu read the analysis for the downgrade. Debt cieling antics was only part of the reason. Spending increases and the disbelief of lowering spending (Medicare doc fix being claimed every year) was a big part of it. Way to demonstrate your low information ignorance though.
 
2013-09-25 11:51:29 AM  

super_grass: The 5 permanent security council members are the biggest gun runners in the world. This resolution isn't worth the strongly worded letters that the UN will eventually write when people walk all over it.


Yes but that's not the reason the US will never ratify it.

First line of the article says it all.  It's an 80 BILLION dollar industry and the US has the lion's share of that.  Raytheon, Boeing, and all those companies stand to lose billions in sales and they will lobby the government with tens of millions in "donations" in order to avoid that.

And they will do it successfully.  Billions of dollars in revenues trumps the occasional nasty regime using those same weapons to massacre tens of thousands, unless they're killing better customers
 
2013-09-25 11:58:29 AM  

urbangirl: Lando Lincoln: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Why, they ARE both the same! That's AMAZING. HOW did I not see this before?

Now explain to the class why the Senate isn't going to ratify it.

Please, allow me.  Ahem.
The powerful arms lobby in the United States has already voiced objections, fearful that it could infringe on individual gun rights within US borders.

Also:
United Nations

And, just to be thorough:
President (Barack) Obama


That's close, but more precisely, it's:

The powerful arms lobby in the United States has already voiced objections, fearful that it could infringe on global gun sales.
 
2013-09-25 11:59:24 AM  
Huh? There's a huge difference between the executive branch signing a UN treaty and Congress ratifying said treaty. As an example, Israel has been a signatory to the UN chemical weapons convention since 1993, but has never ratified it, and, as such, is not bound by it.

Signing a treat indicates that the executive branch is interested in becoming a signatory to it. However, it does not become binding law until ratified by Congress.

I'm not sure these folks actually understand how Government works?
 
2013-09-25 12:00:22 PM  
Does it really count as controversial if the controversy is completely manufactured?
 
2013-09-25 12:01:35 PM  

SilentStrider: And of course the wingnuts are using this to claim the UN is coming for your guns


FTA:
The powerful arms lobby in the United States has already voiced objections, fearful that it could infringe on individual gun rights within US borders.

FTFTreaty (the first farking page, even):
Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system,

/Because the number of lazy, stupid, gullible farkwits is truly mind-boggling.
 
2013-09-25 12:02:20 PM  

error 303: Huh? There's a huge difference between the executive branch signing a UN treaty and Congress ratifying said treaty. As an example, Israel has been a signatory to the UN chemical weapons convention since 1993, but has never ratified it, and, as such, is not bound by it.

Signing a treat indicates that the executive branch is interested in becoming a signatory to it. However, it does not become binding law until ratified by Congress.

I'm not sure these folks actually understand how Government works?


No, no, no. This is EXACTLY like the GOP trying to defund Obamacare 42 times. Both sides are equally bad, so just vote Republican. Thank you.
 
2013-09-25 12:02:47 PM  

jakomo002: First line of the article says it all. It's an 80 BILLION dollar industry and the US has the lion's share of that. Raytheon, Boeing, and all those companies stand to lose billions in sales and they will lobby the government with tens of millions in "donations" in order to avoid that.


Which is kind of a silly complaint considering the significant ITAR regulations already on the books for export control and the recent efforts by the Obama administration to overhaul and simplify them.

Not having dug through the treaty, I'd imagine implementation of such a treaty (assuming ratification) would be based on simple modification of the Commerce Country Chart.
 
2013-09-25 12:03:48 PM  
What this does is demonstrate to the world that the Democrats are responsible and the Republicans are tools of the gun lobby.
 
2013-09-25 12:10:25 PM  

nekom: SilentStrider: And of course the wingnuts are using this to claim the UN is coming for your guns

I thought those would be collected at the FEMA camps?


No, they'll be distributed to illegal immigrants so they can guard you on the way there.
 
2013-09-25 12:12:46 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: dittybopper: nekom: Lando Lincoln: And the NRA doesn't want them to because they're nutjobs bought and paid for by gun manufacturers.

FTFY

It's the other-way 'round:  The gun manufacturers are bought and paid for by the NRA, because the NRA has the muscle to shut down a gun manufacturer that steps out of line, even the biggest, most prestigious manufacturers.

See:   Smith & Wesson Agreement of 2000.

Moral of the story:  Don't piss off your customers.

Alternate interpretation: The cartel decided to rein in one of its members that broke with the established trade strategy, and directed its agents within the NRA to establish the correct opinion within the group, thus bringing the now-diminished member back into the fold to serve as an example to any others that might consider leaving.

Just speculation, of course.


One that doesn't fit what actually happened.

Within minutes after the agreement was announced, individuals on the usenet group talk.politics.guns and other online message boards were talking about a boycott of Smith & Wesson.

"Since S&W has knuckled under to Clinton's pressure tactics and the lawsuits,
they won't be selling any more 'Smiths' to me. "
...
"after reading the agreement that Smith has signed, I doubt 
that anyone will be buying anything they make after next year; they've just 
put themselves out of business. "

"S and W needs to be boycottedd by gun owners or other companies will
follown. We need to boycott S and W and hurt them where the company feels
it, the wallet. "
...
"Smith & Wesson can go to hell."
...
"S&W just signed their own death warrant. "
...
"S&W can anticipate a sharp decline in sales and a reduction in
S&W franchises as American gun purchasers make their anger
known. Citibank did a 180 after gun owners put pressure on them
after they announced they were cancelling the accounts of gun dealers. S&W's
CEO, Ed Schultz is not from the gun industry and is
now just finding out that he's stepped into a hornets nest. "


Those are just the comments from one forum, immediately after the announcement (which was on a Friday evening, so manufacturers wouldn't have had a comment until the next Monday, March 20th).

Plus, the US government looked into the possibility that there was collusion among gun manufacturers, and found *NOTHING*.

So while it's a theory, it's an incorrect theory.  This was a boycott driven at the grassroots level, not by other manufacturers.
 
2013-09-25 12:13:28 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008

You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.

It was purely a protest gesture. I knew he had no chance, but could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. And Bush was winning Louisiana by a wide margin, anyway.

In 2008? I don't think I could vote for Bush or Kerry either...


Well he won his third term without your vote.

Hopefully we can stop him from getting a fifth.
 
2013-09-25 12:16:50 PM  

BMFPitt: Car_Ramrod: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008

You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.

It was purely a protest gesture. I knew he had no chance, but could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. And Bush was winning Louisiana by a wide margin, anyway.

In 2008? I don't think I could vote for Bush or Kerry either...

Well he won his third term without your vote.

Hopefully we can stop him from getting a fifth.


So, vote republican.
 
2013-09-25 12:18:19 PM  

Infernalist: BMFPitt: Car_Ramrod: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008

You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.

It was purely a protest gesture. I knew he had no chance, but could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. And Bush was winning Louisiana by a wide margin, anyway.

In 2008? I don't think I could vote for Bush or Kerry either...

Well he won his third term without your vote.

Hopefully we can stop him from getting a fifth.

So, vote republican.


Do you know what a thought-terminating cliche is?
 
2013-09-25 12:18:51 PM  

dittybopper: Within minutes after the agreement was announced, individuals on the usenet group talk.politics.guns and other online message boards were talking about a boycott of Smith & Wesson.


Since the Principle of Usenet Exclusivity states that there can be no other discussion or planning anywhere else on the planet if a usenet group is discussing a topic, I see no problem with your logic.
 
2013-09-25 12:21:34 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Whoops, least logical, most illogical. Pick one.


Most illogically logical...at least according to my quick review of high school grammar, and Star Trek TOS.
 
2013-09-25 12:22:49 PM  

iaazathot: How exactly is the ACA a "bad law?" Please show your work. Derp doesn't count as evidence.


The President promised it would cut the average household's healthcare cost by 2500.00. It will not
The President promised to cover all Americans. It will not.


It's so bad that the President has told business that they don't have to play along. It's so bad that the President has said that Congress and it's staffers don't have to play along.
Since when did we accept one law for us and one law for them? I know it happens sometimes but since when did we just roll over and take it?
 
2013-09-25 12:26:13 PM  
Setting aside the Obamacare comparissons and arguments, signing this treaty is not a kind of political theater. Kerry is signing as the representative of the U.S. president and they don't need the senate's approval for that. The senate is needed to ratify the treaty. But those two things are somewhat different matters. I think the president may even be able to sign the treaty and never even submit it for ratification if he doesn't think it will happen. There is no political impase here and lots of countries (the U.S. included) are signatories to treaties they never ratified. This is a fairly common practice.

The UN actually keeps track of which countries are signatories and which have ratified existing treaties and conventions as separate categories. Those that ratified treaties have made a commitment to adhere by the terms, signatories have not. States that ratify usually become part of a treaty body (or conference of state parties) where reports are submitted to determine if obligations are being met. Signing w/o ratifying a treaty is akin to signing a non-binding resolution. In theory, even before signing this treaty, the U.S. agreed with the principle that keeping weapons from genocidal maniacs, terrorists and other problematic people is a good thing (I stress the "in theory" part). So signing it doesn't significantly change things for America. At most, if we sell weapons to terrorists or mass murderers; we get a letter from the U.N. that's even less harsh than the one a nation that has ratified the treaty would get, because even though the letter will include language reminding us that we signed the treaty, it will also have to acknowledge that we aren't bound by it.

Having said that, signing w/o ratifying is also sometimes done as an interim step until conditions in the country change for ratification to take place. So as soon as Obama has the votes in the senate... whether it happens after the next mid-term or during his third term, he'll get this done come for your guns backed by the UN black helicopters.
 
2013-09-25 12:26:51 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: iaazathot: How exactly is the ACA a "bad law?" Please show your work. Derp doesn't count as evidence.

The President promised it would cut the average household's healthcare cost by 2500.00. It will not
The President promised to cover all Americans. It will not.


It's so bad that the President has told business that they don't have to play along. It's so bad that the President has said that Congress and it's staffers don't have to play along.
Since when did we accept one law for us and one law for them? I know it happens sometimes but since when did we just roll over and take it?


Come on SH, you know how the deal went down. The original goal and spirit of the law has been hindered, underfunded, delayed and subverted at every possible stage by Congressional Republicans and and conservative-leaning court. It's by no means perfect (or even awesome) legislation, but it's a step in the right direction, and does solve some real problems like pre-existing condition coverage, for instance.
 
2013-09-25 12:28:40 PM  

Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?


Well Cruz is trying to prevent poor peole from getting healthcare and middle income people from getting a break o their health insurance rates.  In contrast John Kerry is signing this treaty that will make it harder for terrorists like in the Kenya Mall from aquiring guns.  Both examples are not equal and Ted Cruz has earned that ridicule.
 
2013-09-25 12:31:28 PM  
dvd.shawnlyman.com
 
2013-09-25 12:31:35 PM  

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Car_Ramrod: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: Fine. I voted third party by absentee ballot in 2000 and for Michael Badnarik in 2004. I also voted for Ron Paul as a Reform Party candidate in Louisiana in 2008

You're crazier than I thought. Ron Paul in 2008? Jesus Christ.

It was purely a protest gesture. I knew he had no chance, but could not in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. And Bush was winning Louisiana by a wide margin, anyway.

In 2008? I don't think I could vote for Bush or Kerry either...

Oh yeah, that's a good point. He said 2008, not 2004. Paul was a crazy racist but apparently that's better than Obama or McCain? Wow.

Whoops. In the car (not driving). Read that all wrong. "Racist"? David Duke is a racist. Y'all are funny sometimes.


So because David Duke was a worse racist than Ron Paul is, Ron Paul can't be racist?
 
2013-09-25 12:31:52 PM  

sprawl15: Not having dug through the treaty, I'd imagine implementation of such a treaty (assuming ratification) would be based on simple modification of the Commerce Country Chart.


Which wouldn't be such a bad thing to overhaul.  Countries with a recent history of brutal repression should be evaluated anew.
 
2013-09-25 12:32:19 PM  

heavymetal: Well Cruz is trying to prevent poor peole from getting healthcare and middle income people from getting a break o their health insurance rates.


I wouldn't really call it 'trying'.
 
2013-09-25 12:32:38 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: It's so bad that the President has told business that they don't have to play along. It's so bad that the President has said that Congress and it's staffers don't have to play along.


It's so bad that....it's still better than what we had before. And the Republican Party isn't giving us any ways to improve it. They just want to KILL OBAMACARE KILL OBAMACARE KILL OBAMACARE but they don't tell us what they'd like to replace it with. Going back to the way it was is a worse option too. So until they give us some new bill to root for, then they just need to shut the fark up.
 
2013-09-25 12:32:57 PM  

sprawl15: heavymetal: Well Cruz is trying to prevent poor peole from getting healthcare and middle income people from getting a break o their health insurance rates.

I wouldn't really call it 'trying'.


Well, he isn't exactly succeeding.
 
2013-09-25 12:33:36 PM  

Lando Lincoln: And the Republican Party isn't giving us any ways to improve it


Tort reform.  That's all it will take!

/and probably a dash of tax cuts.
 
2013-09-25 12:34:17 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: iaazathot: How exactly is the ACA a "bad law?" Please show your work. Derp doesn't count as evidence.

The President promised it would cut the average household's healthcare cost by 2500.00. It will not
The President promised to cover all Americans. It will not.



It's so bad that the President has told business that they don't have to play along. It's so bad that the President has said that Congress and it's staffers don't have to play along.
Since when did we accept one law for us and one law for them? I know it happens sometimes but since when did we just roll over and take it?


So, it's Obama's fault that the Republicans have done everything they could think of to sabotage the process?
 
2013-09-25 12:34:37 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: It's so bad that the President has told business that they don't have to play along.


You will recall that some large businesses requested more time to get in line with the regulations. That's not exactly the same thing as what you said.
 
2013-09-25 12:36:48 PM  

LoneWolf343: The Stealth Hippopotamus: iaazathot: How exactly is the ACA a "bad law?" Please show your work. Derp doesn't count as evidence.

The President promised it would cut the average household's healthcare cost by 2500.00. It will not
The President promised to cover all Americans. It will not.


It's so bad that the President has told business that they don't have to play along. It's so bad that the President has said that Congress and it's staffers don't have to play along.
Since when did we accept one law for us and one law for them? I know it happens sometimes but since when did we just roll over and take it?

So, it's Obama's fault that the Republicans have done everything they could think of to sabotage the process?


WHY WON'T HE LEAD
 
2013-09-25 12:42:49 PM  

jakomo002: sprawl15: Not having dug through the treaty, I'd imagine implementation of such a treaty (assuming ratification) would be based on simple modification of the Commerce Country Chart.

Which wouldn't be such a bad thing to overhaul.  Countries with a recent history of brutal repression should be evaluated anew.


It's pretty constantly overhauled. IIRC, it can be modified by the Executive branch directly without needing Congressional action other than those lines that have an EAR reference.

And these categories are themselves a reference to Export Control Classification Numbers, which is a categorization of every export and these are also directly managed by the Executive.
 
2013-09-25 12:46:46 PM  

Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: A State official said the treaty would "reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," while protecting gun rights.

You mean like transferring weapons to Mexican drug cartels or Al Qaeda operatives? Yeah, someone probably should put a stop to that.

I agree. The Bush family should have never done those things, either

Okay. So what?

I guess I should have asked you the same thing

Okay. So what?

You brought up the b-b-but Bush. Do you get tired of that? It's sort of a non-point. It's like something you reflexively spit up into the thread.


Translation: Dammit stop pointing out that we supported this exact thing under Bush and only every cry about it when the POTUS has a D next to their name. People might start noticing a pattern.
 
2013-09-25 12:47:22 PM  

heavymetal: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Well Cruz is trying to prevent poor peole from getting healthcare and middle income people from getting a break o their health insurance rates.  In contrast John Kerry is signing this treaty that will make it harder for terrorists like in the Kenya Mall from aquiring guns.  Both examples are not equal and Ted Cruz has earned that ridicule.


The far-right would argue that Cruz is trying to save America from drowning in unaffordable debt and from becoming a nanny state where John Kerry is trying chip away at Constitutionally granted rights.  Both arguments are detached from reality and serve only as partisan entertainment whilst the people in power quietly work together to get shiat done.
 
2013-09-25 12:49:04 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Come on SH, you know how the deal went down. The original goal and spirit of the law has been hindered, underfunded, delayed and subverted at every possible stage by Congressional Republicans and and conservative-leaning court. It's by no means perfect (or even awesome) legislation, but it's a step in the right direction, and does solve some real problems like pre-existing condition coverage, for instance


Mean a conservative leaning court that bent over backwards to keep ACA as the law of the land? And the only thing the Republicans can do is cut the funding for advertising the thing. Really the law has failed on its face. The President knows this but his ego is in his way.
 
2013-09-25 12:51:13 PM  

sammyk: Somacandra: FTFA: Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the most vocal opponents of the treaty, sent a letter to Kerry declaring it "dead in the water,"

If you take your policy cues from Inhofe, a global climate change denier and birfer who can't stand the thought of women or gay people serving in the military, believes there is no separation of church and state, and also has gone on record as saying the 9/11 attacks were God's punishment for America, there isn't much anyone can do for you.

THIS!

And just how is this political theater? I always thought that the Executive branch would think a treaty is a good idea nad send it to Congress to reject or ratify it. Congress does not get to negotiate the terms of the treaty. They ratify it or reject it. Simple as that.

Here's the rub.
The chance of adoption by the U.S. is slim. A two-thirds majority would be needed in the Senate to ratify.

There is no chance in hell that any treaty no matter what it is will get through the current legislature.

So the Sec of State should just stop doing his job?


The other part of the puzzle is a little known fact about international treaties. Signatories to a treaty who have NOT ratified the treaty are nonetheless obligated to not hinder or oppose operations and conditions of the treaty. In effect, in this case, there is little difference in how it affects the US, ratified or not. Upon ratification, the treaty terms become law of the land domestically but ratification does not affect international US behavioural obligations so long as the US is a signatory. Of course, like most international law, it is really more of a convention and custom leaving lots of wriggle room.
 
2013-09-25 12:54:22 PM  

Bucky Katt: Three Crooked Squirrels: GOP-like behavior detected

and we're done.


..eh?
 
2013-09-25 01:04:46 PM  

Lucky LaRue: The far-right would argue that Cruz is trying to save America from drowning in unaffordable debt and from becoming a nanny state where John Kerry is trying chip away at Constitutionally granted rights.  Both arguments are detached from reality and serve only as partisan entertainment whilst the people in power quietly work together to get shiat done.


You realize that you just place the blame for the entire gridlock in government solely on the far-right. Did you mean to do that? If so, thanks for finally agreeing with us that both sides are not the same, not even both fringes.
 
2013-09-25 01:05:40 PM  

King Something: Lucky LaRue: King Something: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Yes, because only one of these two sides is actively cheerleading for an economic catastrophe just to spite the other side.

Yep.  The GOP wants to destroy the economy and ruin America - all because the country elected a Black man to the presidency.  It is amazing how liberals make themselves look like complete jackasses considering how wise and erudite their observations are.


O-HO! Is funny because it's true! O-ho-ho-ho!

/and if you still don't think it's true, compare the GOP's behavior over the last five years or so to their behavior over the previous hundred
//specifically, compare which of those tow time periods has more examples of the GOP filibustering their own legislation just because the Democratic President has publicly stated that he approves of that legislation; voting to defund the teleprompter; or turning the raising of the debt ceiling from an ordinary and mundane procedure which passed with less fanfare and debate than the renaming of post offices into a major bargaining chip in order to get no less than 98% of what they want, in exchange for allowing the country to pay for spending that they themselves authorized


The GOP is close to the craziest they've ever been right now but they were getting crazier at a pretty steady rate before. They are at/approaching peak crazy right now because right now the furthest point into the future.

If they suddenly start making sense right after Obama leaves to go run ofa or whatever you might have a point.
 
2013-09-25 01:06:12 PM  

Lucky LaRue: theknuckler_33: Cruz and the House radicals' theater may shut down our government

Uh.. no.  Cruz struck a deal with Reid.  He's up there because Reid gave him permission to go full derp and pretend to filibuster.  He's only there as long as Harry wants him there and, at the end of his rant, the bill will go to a simple majority vote and be rejected.


Uh, you're not keeping up. Cruz is pointlessly delaying a cloture vote. That vote will pass. Reid will then strip out the defunding provision of the CR, and since cloture has been invoked, the bill gets a simple majorityy vote. Cruz is trying to give the appearance that he is filibustering the vote because he knows this will happen, but it is not a filibuster or even a speech intended to gain support for defunding. It's nothing more than posturing to the Tea Party.
 
2013-09-25 01:12:06 PM  
Not ratifying the UN treaty would allow liberals to say the Republicans are pro-genocide, so there's that.
 
2013-09-25 01:12:29 PM  

sprawl15: dittybopper: Within minutes after the agreement was announced, individuals on the usenet group talk.politics.guns and other online message boards were talking about a boycott of Smith & Wesson.

Since the Principle of Usenet Exclusivity states that there can be no other discussion or planning anywhere else on the planet if a usenet group is discussing a topic, I see no problem with your logic.


Another datapoint:  Once Saf-T-Hammer purchased S&W and repudiated the agreement, the boycott ended.

Now ask yourself why, if it was other gun manufacturers driving the boycott, why would they voluntarily give up the increased market share they gained because of boycott of S&W?  I mean, they're motivated by money, right?  So if they got used to selling an extra 20% to cover the guns Smith & Wesson wasn't selling, why give that up?

Doesn't make sense, unless you see it for what it was:  A grassroots driven boycott.

Even NPR recognizes that the gun industry doesn't dictate to the NRA, the NRA dictates to the gun industry:

What is it you think has been overlooked about the - whatever you want to call it - the gun lobby, the gun industry, gun rights advocates, what did you discover?

PAUL BARRETT: It's becoming almost conventional wisdom that the reason the NRA goes to such extremes is that it is driven by the gun industry. And in fact, that understanding is just incorrect. If anything, it is the NRA that sets the terms of the debate and the gun industry basically obediently follows along.
 
2013-09-25 01:16:03 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: So because David Duke was a worse racist than Ron Paul is, Ron Paul can't be racist?


I don't personally think RONPAUL!!!1111!111111 is overtly racist. I do believe, however, he's more than willing to tolerate racist acts and behaviors because...FREEMARKETS!!!1!1!111!!!!111111!

In other words, RONPAUL!!!!1111!!!11!!!!11!! Supports institutionalized racism.
 
2013-09-25 01:18:04 PM  

simplicimus: Not ratifying the UN treaty would allow liberals to say the Republicans are pro-genocide, so there's that.


Conservatives in America have always been pro-genocide.

See...(Puritans) (Indian Wars)
 
2013-09-25 01:19:11 PM  
dittybopper:

you seem to be confused

1) I don't care about how many blogs you dig up
2) Even if I did care, it doesn't matter how many blogs you dig up, "some people anonymously said on the internet" isn't proof of anything other than "some people anonymously said on the internet."
3) And even if I decided to push forward anyway, you've a history of fleeing from a thread when people expose your ignorance

i mean it is neat and all that you discovered google but (tip from an old google pro, write this down) I don't think "a partisan group dictates the tone of the entire 'pro-gun' lobby's stance from 'grassroots' to manufacturers" is really the talking point you want to push

iat is kind of creepy
 
2013-09-25 01:19:36 PM  

X-boxershorts: simplicimus: Not ratifying the UN treaty would allow liberals to say the Republicans are pro-genocide, so there's that.

Conservatives in America have always been pro-genocide.

See...(Puritans) (Indian Wars)


Israel...
 
2013-09-25 01:23:18 PM  

Lucky LaRue: King Something: Lucky LaRue: So, let me get this straight:  Fox New is ridiculing Kerry for political theater and MSNBC is ridiculing Cruz for political theater.  And you guys actually choose between these two sides?

Yes, because only one of these two sides is actively cheerleading for an economic catastrophe just to spite the other side.

Yep.  The GOP wants to destroy the economy and ruin America - all because the country elected a Black man to the presidency.  It is amazing how liberals make themselves look like complete jackasses considering how wise and erudite their observations are.


You sound like you're in denial.
 
2013-09-25 01:26:19 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: UrukHaiGuyz: Come on SH, you know how the deal went down. The original goal and spirit of the law has been hindered, underfunded, delayed and subverted at every possible stage by Congressional Republicans and and conservative-leaning court. It's by no means perfect (or even awesome) legislation, but it's a step in the right direction, and does solve some real problems like pre-existing condition coverage, for instance

Mean a conservative leaning court that bent over backwards to keep ACA as the law of the land? And the only thing the Republicans can do is cut the funding for advertising the thing. Really the law has failed on its face. The President knows this but his ego is in his way.


It can't have failed yet, since it has yet to be fully implemented. Give it five years, and ask average Americans if they want to repeal it. Like it or not, it's here to stay. Just look at Medicare or SS for an example of how loathe people are to give up an entitlement (not a dirty word, btw!) that tangibly improves their living standard. And the court undercut the Medicaid expansion that would have left Republican governors less room to subvert the law as they have.
 
2013-09-25 01:27:40 PM  
People who oppose the UN Arms Treaty:

Syria
Iran
North Korea
The GOP
 
2013-09-25 01:56:56 PM  

sprawl15: dittybopper:

you seem to be confused

1) I don't care about how many blogs you dig up
2) Even if I did care, it doesn't matter how many blogs you dig up, "some people anonymously said on the internet" isn't proof of anything other than "some people anonymously said on the internet."
3) And even if I decided to push forward anyway, you've a history of fleeing from a thread when people expose your ignorance

i mean it is neat and all that you discovered google but (tip from an old google pro, write this down) I don't think "a partisan group dictates the tone of the entire 'pro-gun' lobby's stance from 'grassroots' to manufacturers" is really the talking point you want to push

iat is kind of creepy


Discovered Google?

I was one of the people posting in talk.politics.guns immediately after the agreement was announced.   I used to write a column about gun rights for an online publication back then, and I wrote column about it less than 5 days after the agreement was announced.  Here is that column:


I had planned to write about the GAO report pointing out the problems with the National Instant Gun Owner Registration scheme, but once again events have overtaken me. Unless you have been under a rock for the past few days, you have no doubt heard that Smith and Wesson has agreed to a set of conditions that will drop the lawsuits filed by several cities and other entities. While Smith and Wesson has been doing a lot of what the agreement asks for already (such as supplying trigger locks with all its guns, a policy since 1998), there are several provisions that make the agreement extremely onerous, and justify a call for a boycott of Smith and Wesson.

I was quite literally disgusted when I heard the news. I saw in my mind an image of Neville Chamberlain stepping off a plane, waving a piece of paper in the air, and proclaiming that his agreement with Adolf Hitler guaranteed "Peace in our time". We all know what a success that agreement was. Less than one year later, the World found itself embroiled in a bitter and bloody war. And this agreement is similar, for those who want to take away your right to keep and bear arms will not be satisified. This is just the first step down a long road. The gun banners have had a taste of victory, and will soon crave more.

First, Smith and Wesson has agreed that it will require its dealers to only sell at gun shows where ALL firearms transfers go through a NICS background check. That includes private transactions between non-dealers. Since when does the private sale of any article (including cars) require the approval of the FBI? It is none of their damned business. Intra-state firearms transactions between private individuals are, at best, a matter for the state. How does the federal government become involved, especially since it is limited by the Constitution to regulating trade between the states? This is a way to get a foot in that door, a way to make it easier to eventually require that all firearms transactions have government approval. That should scare you.

Smith and Wesson also agreed to restrict its First Amendment rights to free speech, in that it agrees not to market guns children and criminals. While I have never seen an advertisement from Smith and Wesson that was aimed specifically at criminals or children, it is, as they say about beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Does this mean that at some point in the future they will be limited to black and white ads with large warnings about the dangers of gun ownership, as happened to the tobacco industry? Also, given their long-standing relationship with law enforcement in this country, why in the World would they market guns to criminals?

Smith has also tossed away its competition customers. Part of the agreement states that all Smith and Wesson firearms will within a year not be readily operated by a child under 6 years old. On the face of it, that seems like a good idea. Except that it means a heavy trigger pull. This means that competition shooters will avoid their products. Why pay for a trigger job (that will most likely void the warranty) that adds to the cost of a new gun when you can buy a gun from a competitor with a better, lighter trigger pull? How will Jerry Miculek be able to duplicate his amazing feats of firing 8 shots in 1 second with a 15 pound trigger pull? Sure, since he works for S&W he'll have them tricked out in the custom shop. Do you have that option?

Another part of the agreement states that Smith and Wesson will incorporate so-called "Smart-Gun" technology in all its new firearms within 36 months. Three years. Think they can get it to work by then? I don't think so. A gun needs to go "bang" every time, all the time. Adding an additional layer of complexity is asking for trouble. Who will be responsible the first time that someone tries to use a "smart gun" and they die because it fails? Probably the manufacturer, although there would be a very good case against those who are suing the gun industry. After all, they blackmailed (and blackmail is the right word) Smith and Wesson into installing them. Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, and all the rest better make sure they keep their lawyers on retainer.

Also, the agreement states that all Smith and Wesson dealers will only sell to those who have passed a safety course and can demonstrate that they can handle firearms safely. But who decides what is acceptable? What if the oversight commission that is overseeing the implementation and administration of the agreement decides in a couple of years to increase the requirements to beyond what the average, law-abiding gun owner can pass? What if they decide that only classes given by the state or federal government count, and those are held once a year on the other side of the state with a fee of $500? Is that reasonable? That could easily come to pass, since Smith and Wesson only has one seat on the commission, the states have one, the cities have two, and the BATF has one. They are essentially outnumbered.
I don't know all of the provisions of the agreement yet, but it appears that there are even more provisions that are just as bad. And you can rest assured that all the provisions only apply to firearms that Smith and Wesson sells to peons like you and I, and not to the guns sold to police departments. So what can you do about it? Put Smith and Wesson out of business with a boycott. And let them know that you are going to do it. You may wish to express your displeasure with a phone call to Smith and Wesson at (413) 781-8300 or a fax to (413) 731-8980. You could also send an e-mail to Ed Schultz, the CEO of Smith and Wesson. You may also wish to join me in signing a boycott petition here. An old-fashioned snail-mail to Ed Schultz might also be a good way to tell Smith and Wesson what you think.

Smith & Wesson
Ed Schultz, CEO & President
2100 Roosevelt Ave.
Springfield, MA 01102

The government is waving a big carrot at the gun manufacturers, by dropping the lawsuits. Let us show them that our stick, a boycott, is bigger. Smith and Wesson may be a lost cause, which is a shame considering its long and illustrious history as a manufacturer of quality firearms. However, just as Citibank and K-Mart learned that it is not a wise business decision to cross gun owners in this country, British owned Smith and Wesson needs a lesson in economics, namely that you don't screw your customers. And make no mistake, by breaking ranks with the rest of the industry, they ARE screwing you. It is time to screw back.


I've been posting online in gun threads in various forums for about 20 years now.  More, if you count BBS Fight-O-Net posts, going back  to the late 1980's.

I've never been employed by the gun industry, nor been compensated by them or the NRA*, or any other gun rights organization.   Hell, for the amount of work I put in for them solely on my own time and initiative, they *OWE* me.

Like I said, even that well-known right wing mouthpiece NPR understands the relationship between the gun owners, the NRA, and the gun manufacturers, something you don't seem to be able to comprehend.

*I was a member of the NRA for about 3 years in the mid-1990's.  I still have some of the magazines downstairs.  The hat I received is long gone.
 
2013-09-25 02:06:04 PM  

heavymetal: John Kerry is signing this treaty that will make it harder for terrorists like in the Kenya Mall from aquiring guns.


That isn't what this treaty will accomplish.

It allows the recognized authority in one nation to complain another sending weapons over its borders.  So Obama can now get nastygrams from places like Syria, Libya, and Mexico.  Any state with an ongoing civil war can and will complain that someone else is responsible for their own mismanagement and incompetence, and now expect the UN to (not) do something about it.

It doesn't make it harder for belligerent nations to simply ignore the UN or launder those weapons through an arms dealer.  Our security commitments won't decrease and the selection on the black market wont change. If anything all it does is complicate our legal exports.

So what's happened is a man with no authority to sign something just did, to the embarrassment of everyone when we don't live up to these commitments.
If we even tried it would make us the worlds biggesthypocrite.
 
2013-09-25 02:12:58 PM  

way south: So what's happened is a man with no authority to sign something just did, to the embarrassment of everyone when we don't live up to these commitments.
If we even tried it would make us the worlds biggesthypocrite.


Kerry does have the authority to sign the agreement. Who is this everyone that will be embarrassed? Why would we still be the world's biggest hypocrite if we followed the agreement?
 
2013-09-25 02:16:46 PM  

highbrow45: Does it really count as controversial if the controversy is completely manufactured?


According to our sorry excuse for news media, yes.
 
2013-09-25 02:29:28 PM  

dittybopper: I've been posting online in gun threads in various forums for about 20 years now.

sprawl15: I don't care about how many blogs you dig up

dittybopper: Like I said, even that well-known right wing mouthpiece NPR understands the relationship between the gun owners, the NRA, and the gun manufacturers, something you don't seem to be able to comprehend.


No, I don't seem to be able to comprehend your argument (via NPR) that the NRA is the sole deciding voice for both 'grassroots' and manufacturers' opinions as I am pretty sure there are pro-gun people and companies who do not jive with the NRA's positions, especially since you seem to have only been a member of the NRA for a short while back in the 90's and would probably consider yourself to be 'pro-gun'.

But I don't really want to comprehend that argument. It's a silly argument.
 
2013-09-25 02:35:40 PM  

simplicimus: way south: So what's happened is a man with no authority to sign something just did, to the embarrassment of everyone when we don't live up to these commitments.
If we even tried it would make us the worlds biggesthypocrite.

Kerry does have the authority to sign the agreement. Who is this everyone that will be embarrassed? Why would we still be the world's biggest hypocrite if we followed the agreement?


Everyone that will be embarrassed are the Republican members of Congress who will have to go on record opposing a treaty based on conspiracy nutters.
 
2013-09-25 02:46:29 PM  

simplicimus: way south: So what's happened is a man with no authority to sign something just did, to the embarrassment of everyone when we don't live up to these commitments.
If we even tried it would make us the worlds biggesthypocrite.

Kerry does have the authority to sign the agreement. Who is this everyone that will be embarrassed? Why would we still be the world's biggest hypocrite if we followed the agreement?


It won't be ratified and he knows it.  His signature is worthless.

We'd be a hypocrite because exporting arms (to allies, rebels, and anyone with the cash or a cause we agree with) has been one of our big things since before the world wars. We are doing so in Syria and a half a dozen other global hot spots right the fark as Kerry's ink is drying on that paper.

You don't find that embarrassing?

/Nevermind the fact that this nation only exists because of unwanted foreign influence in British affairs.
/Or that many of those UN members have a seat at the table because of our exports.
 
2013-09-25 02:52:58 PM  

way south: That isn't what this treaty will accomplish.

It allows the recognized authority in one nation to complain another sending weapons over its borders.  So Obama can now get nastygrams from places like Syria, Libya, and Mexico.  Any state with an ongoing civil war can and will complain that someone else is responsible for their own mismanagement and incompetence, and now expect the UN to (not) do something about it.


Here's the official text. Please show me where it does what you say it does.
/What it really does? Help US exporters comply with a single international law.
//Obama is even trying to simplify the process.
 
2013-09-25 03:11:40 PM  

way south: simplicimus: way south: So what's happened is a man with no authority to sign something just did, to the embarrassment of everyone when we don't live up to these commitments.
If we even tried it would make us the worlds biggesthypocrite.

Kerry does have the authority to sign the agreement. Who is this everyone that will be embarrassed? Why would we still be the world's biggest hypocrite if we followed the agreement?

It won't be ratified and he knows it.  His signature is worthless.

We'd be a hypocrite because exporting arms (to allies, rebels, and anyone with the cash or a cause we agree with) has been one of our big things since before the world wars. We are doing so in Syria and a half a dozen other global hot spots right the fark as Kerry's ink is drying on that paper.

You don't find that embarrassing?

/Nevermind the fact that this nation only exists because of unwanted foreign influence in British affairs.
/Or that many of those UN members have a seat at the table because of our exports.


How many of our exports are used to commit genocide by the recipients? That's what the resolution is about. If we are doing this, we are hypocrites and should be embarrassed, and I'm OK with this. Since I will soon be called an idiot by someone or another, let me finish with this: We should strive to be the nation we pretend to be.
 
2013-09-25 03:26:49 PM  

HypnozombieX: Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: Nabb1: A State official said the treaty would "reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," while protecting gun rights.

You mean like transferring weapons to Mexican drug cartels or Al Qaeda operatives? Yeah, someone probably should put a stop to that.

I agree. The Bush family should have never done those things, either

Okay. So what?

I guess I should have asked you the same thing

Okay. So what?

You brought up the b-b-but Bush. Do you get tired of that? It's sort of a non-point. It's like something you reflexively spit up into the thread.

Translation: Dammit stop pointing out that we supported this exact thing under Bush and only every cry about it when the POTUS has a D next to their name. People might start noticing a pattern.


It's intellectually lazy. You can't talk about the policy on the merits, so you try to argue about the critic. Here, let me use a word more on your level: Derp.
 
2013-09-25 03:47:38 PM  

sprawl15: No, I don't seem to be able to comprehend your argument (via NPR) that the NRA is the sole deciding voice for both 'grassroots' and manufacturers' opinions as I am pretty sure there are pro-gun people and companies who do not jive with the NRA's positions, especially since you seem to have only been a member of the NRA for a short while back in the 90's and would probably consider yourself to be 'pro-gun'.


Actually, in regards to the Smith & Wesson agreement, the NRA was lagging behind the grassroots call for a boycott.

They jumped on the bandwagon.

The boycott calls started almost immediately online by individuals, as I showed you.  I even showed you my column, published online on March 22nd, 2000 (but written a couple days before).   The NRA Weenersed on the agreement on Monday, March 20th, and even then didn't call for a boycott of Smith & Wesson, it merely condemned the agreement.

By that time, teh intarwebs had been buzzing for a couple days with gun owners vowing to kill Smith & Wesson with a boycott.

You just don't seem to grasp that as a group, gun owners like nothing more than knifing perceived traitors in the back.  Witness the shutting down of one of the biggest outdoor sporting goods shows in the country, the Eastern Sports & Outdoor Show earlier this year.  When the company that organized it announced that there would be no AR-15's or other "black rifles" allowed at the show, a boycott was organized, and eventually the show had to be cancelled for lack of support.

Gun owner boycotts have little effect on businesses that aren't really gun related, like, say, Starbucks.  But they can be and are devastating to businesses who rely on the good graces of the gun buying public to stay in business, like firearms and accessory manufacturers.
 
2013-09-25 03:49:14 PM  

dittybopper: The NRA Weenersed on the agreement on Monday, March 20th,


Heh, nice filter pwnage.
 
2013-09-25 04:00:10 PM  

dittybopper: Actually, in regards to the Smith & Wesson agreement, the NRA was lagging behind the grassroots call for a boycott.


Do you just not understand that I'm responding to your actual posting rather than the magical land of wonder that exists within your head?

I mean, you keep posting nonsense like this:

dittybopper: You just don't seem to grasp that as a group, gun owners like nothing more than knifing perceived traitors in the back.

in response to "you know the argument you typed up before hitting 'add comment' does not actually make a whole lot of sense".
 
2013-09-25 04:13:04 PM  
Yeah, I'm in the middle of debating this with my buddy, a gun owner like myself, but one who is VERY concerned.

First, I pointed out that it's hard to take anyone from the GOP serious when they talk about "wasting time". I got asked to address the 'actual' story, and why I thought it was OK for Obama to "circumvent the will of the American People".

I pointed out that it doesn't get ratified unless 2/3 of the Senate votes it in, which very much sounds like the "Will of the American People" to me.

He then went on to say that only 50 nations have to ratify it before it becomes policy, I countered WI the point that the article STILL states that only the countries who ratify it are bound by it, and if there was any way to state that differently, Fox would be all over it.

Unfortunately, I don't think he really read this through, which doesn't surprise me all that much. I also posted out that this has turned into a real life telling of 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf', and the shiat's getting really old at this point.

He DID have one good point to keep in mind: Apparently, the main writers behind this are the super genii who gave us the mess known as the Assault Weapons Ban, so at least we know it will be horribly written.
 
2013-09-25 04:32:31 PM  

Mikey1969: He DID have one good point to keep in mind: Apparently, the main writers behind this are the super genii who gave us the mess known as the Assault Weapons Ban, so at least we know it will be horribly written.


I'm fairly certain that a Group of Governmental Experts from the following 28 countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States convened in 2008 didn't write any US legislation in 1994, Mikey.

More to the point, I've already linked the text of the treaty, and - in spite of being written in diplomatese - it is not poorly written at all.
 
2013-09-25 04:42:56 PM  

Mikey1969: I pointed out that it doesn't get ratified unless 2/3 of the Senate votes it in, which very much sounds like the "Will of the American People" to me.


That's true.   But remember that once the US signs it, the Senate can grant its approval to it at any time after.  So it ain't gonna get ratified tomorrow.  But 10 or 15 years from now?  Who knows?   Some treaties have languished in the Senate for decades.
 
2013-09-25 05:04:54 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Here's the official text. Please show me where it does what you say it does.


"Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system,"

...So what if the Sovereign decides it doesn't want us exporting to his unhappy subjects?

Arms control is legal where the states leader decides to make it legal. When we supply the resistance (directly or indirectly) they would have a justified complaint about our meddling.
That opinion is unlikely to change no matter how many pieces of paper we file with their customs agents. Saying that we have to file at the UN as well isn't exactly making our business, or meddling, an easier task.

simplicimus: How many of our exports are used to commit genocide by the recipients?


The question is: how likely is it the UN will intercede in transactions where weapons are being sold to murderous maniacs?
Did they stop Putin from selling missiles to Syria?
Did they stop Assad from legally getting chemical weapon components?
They seem to have missed out on preventing a number of wars and genocides until now, so I don't expect Kerry is helping them turn any new leaves.
Seems to me that this kind of agreement is going to constrain the US and our allies more than it is going to do anything about Russia, China, North Korea or any other dealers to rogue nations.

The people committing genocide will never want for guns or ammunition.
The people trying to arm the resistance, however, have a new piece of paperwork to fill out.

Gun control always works out that way.
 
2013-09-25 05:08:45 PM  

LoneWolf343: The Stealth Hippopotamus: iaazathot: How exactly is the ACA a "bad law?" Please show your work. Derp doesn't count as evidence.

The President promised it would cut the average household's healthcare cost by 2500.00. It will not
The President promised to cover all Americans. It will not.


It's so bad that the President has told business that they don't have to play along. It's so bad that the President has said that Congress and it's staffers don't have to play along.
Since when did we accept one law for us and one law for them? I know it happens sometimes but since when did we just roll over and take it?

So, it's Obama's fault that the Republicans have done everything they could think of to sabotage the process?


Didn't he have a supermajority? I mean the ACA is better in a lot of ways (probably all) than what existed before, but I thought he had the votes for override any filibuster. Caving into the insurance companies to let them cash in didn't exactly look great either.
 
2013-09-25 05:25:07 PM  

redmid17: Didn't he have a supermajority?


A super-majority of people that voted for the eventual bill? Yes. A super-majority of Democrats? No.
 
2013-09-25 05:29:50 PM  

dittybopper: Mikey1969: I pointed out that it doesn't get ratified unless 2/3 of the Senate votes it in, which very much sounds like the "Will of the American People" to me.

That's true.   But remember that once the US signs it, the Senate can grant its approval to it at any time after.  So it ain't gonna get ratified tomorrow.  But 10 or 15 years from now?  Who knows?   Some treaties have languished in the Senate for decades.


I'm just not in panic mode like some people. Just like I didn't go out and buy 15,000 rounds of ammo when Obama got elected... Besides, 10 or 15 years from now gives us plenty of time to view the real world effects of such a treaty and determine if it's having a beneficial effect or not. My bigger concern is all of the people who keep trying to pass gun legislation based on their ignorance, such as the AWB and its focus on appearances.
 
2013-09-25 05:33:12 PM  

Lando Lincoln: redmid17: Didn't he have a supermajority?

A super-majority of people that voted for the eventual bill? Yes. A super-majority of Democrats? No.


I need to stop drinking during lunch. I'm much more on the ball if I start with breakfast.
 
2013-09-25 05:35:34 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Mikey1969: He DID have one good point to keep in mind: Apparently, the main writers behind this are the super genii who gave us the mess known as the Assault Weapons Ban, so at least we know it will be horribly written.

I'm fairly certain that a Group of Governmental Experts from the following 28 countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States convened in 2008 didn't write any US legislation in 1994, Mikey.

More to the point, I've already linked the text of the treaty, and - in spite of being written in diplomatese - it is not poorly written at all.


You're right you know... People from the United States in 2008 could not POSSIBLY have been people in the United states in 1994.
 
2013-09-25 05:55:58 PM  

redmid17: Lando Lincoln: redmid17: Didn't he have a supermajority?

A super-majority of people that voted for the eventual bill? Yes. A super-majority of Democrats? No.

I need to stop drinking during lunch. I'm much more on the ball if I start with breakfast.


Someone awesome said recently, "you can't drink all day long if you don't start early."
 
2013-09-25 06:11:03 PM  
All it took to get rid of all our guns was to sign a treaty?

Why didn't someone tell Reagan? He could have made abortion illegal just by signing an agreement with whatever government he put in charge of Grenada.

Damn those short-sighted Republicans for not taking advantage of an obvious loophole.
 
2013-09-25 07:43:48 PM  

way south: "Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system,"

...So what if the Sovereign decides it doesn't want us exporting to his unhappy subjects?


You mean complying with Federal and international law as it has stood since the time of the League of Nations?

Mikey1969: You're right you know... People from the United States in 2008 could not POSSIBLY have been people in the United states in 1994.


Do I really have to point out that none of the authors of the AWB was a member of the Group of Governmental Experts?
 
2013-09-25 09:01:24 PM  

stuhayes2010: Is this the UN treaty gun nuts say is going to ban guns in the US?


On days that end in Y, the UN is the Strongly Worded Letter Gang that Can't Shoot Straight.  On the other days, the UN is the Evil Black Helicopter Agenda 21 Illuminati Bilderberg Group Trilateral Commission Fluoridation Conspiracy.  So guns will only be banned on days that don't end in Y.
 
2013-09-25 11:05:44 PM  

Mikey1969: dittybopper: Mikey1969: I pointed out that it doesn't get ratified unless 2/3 of the Senate votes it in, which very much sounds like the "Will of the American People" to me.

That's true.   But remember that once the US signs it, the Senate can grant its approval to it at any time after.  So it ain't gonna get ratified tomorrow.  But 10 or 15 years from now?  Who knows?   Some treaties have languished in the Senate for decades.

I'm just not in panic mode like some people. Just like I didn't go out and buy 15,000 rounds of ammo when Obama got elected... Besides, 10 or 15 years from now gives us plenty of time to view the real world effects of such a treaty and determine if it's having a beneficial effect or not. My bigger concern is all of the people who keep trying to pass gun legislation based on their ignorance, such as the AWB and its focus on appearances.


Yeah, I'm not freaking out about it either.

It's more of a low-level long term concern.
 
Displayed 190 of 190 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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