Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Bill O'Reilly asks Bundy Militia member:"How does your protest differ from Occupy Wall Street?" Bundy supporter:"Mr. Bundy is providing the country with beef." Hey everybody: FREE STEAKS   (talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, Occupy Wall Street, Bill O'Reilly, Bundy, Wall Street, local church, Bundy supporter, beef, foreign exchange reserves  
•       •       •

4379 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Apr 2014 at 5:11 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
MFK
2014-04-24 12:10:26 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "I don't recognize the United States government as even existing."

[images.dailykos.com image 550x367]

Funny how his Passionate Defenders are desperately trying to extract some reason or philosophy from this idiot's actions. He just doesn't want to pay his bills. All there is to it.


we really *are* living in different realities...
 
2014-04-24 12:12:25 AM  

dr_blasto: Hard to get past the sniper guy.

Another thing is, we as a society pay the uniformed types to do this shiat, with a separate layer of responsibility and generally, broader powers. The point being that they are enforcement corps for society as a whole. That doesn't make them immune to corruption, doesn't make their actions of brutality suddenly "OK," but it does imply they are part of our social contract and their presence to some is comforting, to some annoying and to some frightening. But to just about everyone, they're pretty normal.

The militarized riot cops are too much for all but the worst situations and that shiat is way the fark over the line. The excessive deployment of SWAT is also bullshiat. fark all that stuff.


Agreed

Now, take away the answerability, take away the protections of the courts, and arm up a bunch of yahoos. That is an escalation. That creates excess risk, and leads to felony action when they interfere with the lawful actions of federal officers, also that guy on the bridge is assaulting the crowd below with a rifle, brandishing and threatening a government agent while in the pursuit of their duties. The people who blocked off that bridge to keep access limited aided and abetted that felony.

This is going to have be an agree to disagree thing.

If anyone is operating without accountability or under reduced accountability, it would be the police.  The fact that you and others are so upset and calling for felony charges for one guy pointing a rifle, some others with slung rifles, and others armed with handguns in holsters shows how different the standard is for average citizens.

Be honest.  You get a choice about which bar you want to go to.  One bar has about 50% of these militia types in it armed, the other has about 50% cops (the other 50% is average people).  Which bar do you really want to go into?  Assume you have to pick one.  Yes, it's a bit of a set up question.

I will always choose the non-cop bar simply because I know that the courts will not automatically take the word of the other armed 'militia' guys if something (illegal) happens to me and they claim it was self defense.  I also know that it will be another party (the police) investigating it and the chances of these guys getting away with it will be low.  I can't say the same for a cop bar, especially if it's one full of cops from one department.  I would also be very confident that these 'militia' guys wouldn't be operating under the mindset that they can get away with it the way I think the cops would.

I don't see that guy as "assaulting" crowd anymore than the police do all the time.  Violating people's civil rights is a crime and the snipers setting up over the crowd to take people out who might fight back against those abusive cops makes them aiders and abetters.  To prove that the people blocking off the freeway were aiding and abetting that particular guy, you have to get him for something solid, THEN you have to prove that they did what they did for him.

There's a picture of a bunch of nuts that are going to potentially (hopefully, as the schadenfreude would be wonderful) lose their weapons collection.

If that happens, I will be back here expressing my support for them if they choose to use whatever means are necessary to stop that seizure.
 
2014-04-24 12:16:12 AM  

dr_blasto: pedrop357: find it funny that so many people on the left are now obsessed with 'freeloading' and this guy's use of crap land far away from anything, but can't be too upset about it without being hypocritical because another group who (my guess, anyway) also knew nothing about it are using it as a rallying point against the feds.

I believe you're just seeing people having fun throwing the right-wing bullshiat back at them as their rampant hypocrisy is fun and amusing to call out.


It's not immediately apparent if the people doing this are doing it just to show them how it feels or if they are serious in their seemingly inconsistent positions.  Either way, I am indeed enjoying it.

The exact same thing happens when some nutball Republican is caught wearing diapers while banging prostitutes at night and espousing family values during the day. I'm a way left-wing person who doesn't care if you bang prostitutes and wear diapers or whatever. But I'll certainly be happy to use your own arguments against you.

So much this.  I love watching the hypocrisy volleys, but always wish one side be the one to stop as it means we always have a side (assuming just two sides here) violating its principles to rub the others face in their own violation of their principles.
 
2014-04-24 12:20:20 AM  

pedrop357: Mrtraveler01: Just from Bundy:

That hasn't happened - yet - and the rancher insists his cattle aren't going anywhere. He acknowledges that he keeps firearms at his ranch and has vowed to "do whatever it takes" to defend his animals from seizure.
"I've got to protect my property," Bundy said as Arden steered several cattle inside an elongated pen. "If people come to monkey with what's mine, I'll call the county sheriff. If that don't work, I'll gather my friends and kids and we'll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/sep/23/lone-rancher-prepared-fi gh t-feds-land/

So one guy vowing to do what it takes.  It might seem threatening, but seems to be right on the edge and isn't that different from the police making similar statements that could be taken as threatening.

When one or two people from the occupy movement(s) were held out as representative of everyone there, we rightly got people here and in other forums saying that not every person felt the same way, that that one person's statements were their own, etc. and that many people here had different reasons for attending.  Hell, some were there to complain about war, lack of this or that, etc.

People here seem to be really quick to demand that all of the so-called militia members should be arrested for various felonies based on the statements of a slim few and actions of even fewer.


So, you're arguing that Bundy somehow has the right to disregard federal laws, because he can?  I mean, that's the end issue here, a rancher who has decided that he will not follow federal laws no matter what, even to the point of getting people with weapons to stand as proxies to 'defend' him from some belief that we are presently under a tyrannical government.

Just because you may not like the laws doesn't give you a right to disregard them whenever you feel like it.  No matter HOW much you disagree with the  federal government.  And by bringing in proxies to escalate the issue, all you are doing is setting up a possible violent clash that could easily be avoided.  But I guess since it won't be Bundy himself getting shot, he doesn't give a damn if others are willing to (or are willing to get their wives, girlfriends and daughters shot, that is).
 
2014-04-24 12:21:11 AM  

dr_blasto: pedrop357: find it funny that so many people on the left are now obsessed with 'freeloading' and this guy's use of crap land far away from anything, but can't be too upset about it without being hypocritical because another group who (my guess, anyway) also knew nothing about it are using it as a rallying point against the feds.


I believe you're just seeing people having fun throwing the right-wing bullshiat back at them as their rampant hypocrisy is fun and amusing to call out.


And get this. I've been paying taxes for decades. If I lose my job, I can get the unemployment I've been paying for for decades. For this, Republican scum will call be a "freeloader."

This asshole is an actual fuking freeloader, and he's the Republican's darling right now.

Tribalist scum.
 
2014-04-24 12:21:25 AM  

JC22: Felgraf: JC22: My view is if the guy is breaking the law, then put a lien on his stuff. But to show up in that type of force is absolutely ridiculous and something else is going on and most likely it involves Reid and the solar farm from the Chinese.

And Reid needs to get his foot out of his mouth that was just in his @$$ and shut up about domestic terrorists because he has no idea what a domestic terrorist is.

And lastly Mr Reid. If you are going to spout off about enforcing the law and some citizen can't do what he's doing then you need to enforce all laws, especially those that are here ILLEGALLY and also those in that certain government run tax agency called the IRS that owe billion in back taxes.

Can't have it both ways jackass.

Hey, how do you enforce a lien?

Oh right. By confiscating property.

Hey what do you do when the person whose property you're trying to confiscate threatens to shoot you?

Disputes over fees normally result in a lien placed on your property, which gets satisfied when the property is sold or inherited. This military response is quite unusual...and if you don't think so, then you are really clueless. Reid has some vendetta or personal goal here and his buddy runs the BLM.


The cattle weren't gathered up in order to collect on his unpaid grazing fees. The fact that he continued to break the law after two court orders that he either pay up or stop grazing on the land led to a third court order where the Federal government's position was:

Thus, the United States seeks a third Order as follows: (1) declaring that Bundy has placed or allowed his livestock to graze on the Allotment in violation of the Court's Orders; (2)directing Bundy to remove his livestock from the Allotment within 45 days of the Court's Order; (3) explicitly authorizing the United States to seize and impound Bundy's livestock if they have not been removed as directed; (4) instructing Bundy that he may not physically interfere with an impoundment operation authorized by the Court's Order; and (5)authorizing the United States to seize and impound Bundy's livestock should he continue to violate the Court's Permanent Injunction in the future.

In other words, he was supposed to have the cattle off the land within 45 days unless he's willing to have them seized and impounded. After nearly 6 months he still hadn't removed the cattle, so the BLM started seizing and imposing the cattle as directed.

It's not rocket science.
 
2014-04-24 12:32:07 AM  

meat0918: Serious Black: You didn't destroy property and weren't arrested because BLM agents assumed (probably correctly) that you would try to murder them if they didn't de-escalate the situation. Last I checked, nobody in OWS waved guns in the faces of federal agents and dared them to play chicken.

It would have been a totally different tone of coverage too.

"Armed gunmen have taken over a protest and are now in a stand off with New York Police.  FBI and DHS agents to assess and assist NYPD, meanwhile the National Guard has been deployed to staging areas around Wall Street, should the violence spill into the city at large."


This should be repeated.
 
2014-04-24 12:40:17 AM  
Damn, this thread just keeps on giving!
 
2014-04-24 04:23:06 AM  

EJ25T: youmightberight: demaL-demaL-yeH: LandOfChocolate: sigdiamond2000: [img.fark.net image 652x365]

He looks like he's questioning whether O'Reilly even lifts.

You're on national TV, can't you at least put on a collared shirt?

I didn't know that dress shirt collars came in size fireplug.

As a reasonably fit guy with a size 17 1/2 neck I can assure you that anything over a 17 neck is cut more like a tent than a shirt.

And woe unto you if you try to tuck the damn thing in. I love it when you have to pleat and fold your shirt around your waist just so it fits in your pants.


18" neck here... on a 5'6" frame with a 46" chest and a 31" sleeve.

Buying a dress shirt usually comes down to, "How much does the damn thing cost after I add $18 for alterations?"

/Yeah, I'm built like a fireplug.
//GIS "Hack Wilson" for a good representation of my build
///I wish I could hit like Hack Wilson...
 
2014-04-24 04:31:24 AM  

DeadPhelps: EJ25T: youmightberight: demaL-demaL-yeH: LandOfChocolate: sigdiamond2000: [img.fark.net image 652x365]

He looks like he's questioning whether O'Reilly even lifts.

You're on national TV, can't you at least put on a collared shirt?

I didn't know that dress shirt collars came in size fireplug.

As a reasonably fit guy with a size 17 1/2 neck I can assure you that anything over a 17 neck is cut more like a tent than a shirt.

And woe unto you if you try to tuck the damn thing in. I love it when you have to pleat and fold your shirt around your waist just so it fits in your pants.

18" neck here... on a 5'6" frame with a 46" chest and a 31" sleeve.

Buying a dress shirt usually comes down to, "How much does the damn thing cost after I add $18 for alterations?"

/Yeah, I'm built like a fireplug.
//GIS "Hack Wilson" for a good representation of my build
///I wish I could hit like Hack Wilson...


I don't wanna know why GIS suggests I might also want images for the search "Hack Wilson Fetal Alcohol Syndrome."
 
2014-04-24 07:06:16 AM  
Occupy was protesting succesful businessmen who control investing for the entire country, when Democratic policy caused a bump in the stock market. Scumbag liberals with all the corporate gadgets, iPhones, tunes, tampons, etc were crying that the stock market exists.

Bundy is protesting brown shirt activity and tyranny, theft and intimidation by a corrupt, and lawless government (both are literally proven true, but since the DOJ is corrupt, well, nothgin will be done).
 
2014-04-24 07:57:04 AM  

Thunderpipes: Occupy was protesting succesful businessmen who control investing for the entire country, when Democratic policy caused a bump in the stock market. Scumbag liberals with all the corporate gadgets, iPhones, tunes, tampons, etc were crying that the stock market exists.

Bundy is protesting brown shirt activity and tyranny, theft and intimidation by a corrupt, and lawless government (both are literally proven true, but since the DOJ is corrupt, well, nothgin will be done).


You're a clearly a smart feller; I'm glad there are people like you with all the right answers.
 
2014-04-24 07:58:04 AM  

pedrop357: dr_blasto: SO, basically, what I'm reading into this is that, personally, you do not see the brandishing of semi-automatic rifles en masse, taking up sniper positions and the like as a radical escalation of a situation and that you would not recognize the situation as having dramatically escalated were you, say, in the group on the ground at the end of sniper-douche's sights?

I mean, I can imagine that possible, but that strikes me as completely foreign.

If that counts as escalation, then every police presence ever is also considered to be radical escalation.

At various public events where the police set up snipers, I or others in that group have undoubtedly been in their sights.

At least if the ONE guy we saw setting up a sniper position were to shoot someone, there would be a thorough investigation by the DA and police.  The other members of his group (assuming he's in a group) wouldn't get to investigate him the way the police investigate themselves.


Ah, I see the problem here. Most of us have never been to an event where the police thought they might have to have snipers. Furthermore, any of us who have likely never found themselves in the sniper's crosshairs.

The fact that you have speaks *volumes*.
 
2014-04-24 08:06:18 AM  

Gecko Gingrich: pedrop357: dr_blasto: SO, basically, what I'm reading into this is that, personally, you do not see the brandishing of semi-automatic rifles en masse, taking up sniper positions and the like as a radical escalation of a situation and that you would not recognize the situation as having dramatically escalated were you, say, in the group on the ground at the end of sniper-douche's sights?

I mean, I can imagine that possible, but that strikes me as completely foreign.

If that counts as escalation, then every police presence ever is also considered to be radical escalation.

At various public events where the police set up snipers, I or others in that group have undoubtedly been in their sights.

At least if the ONE guy we saw setting up a sniper position were to shoot someone, there would be a thorough investigation by the DA and police.  The other members of his group (assuming he's in a group) wouldn't get to investigate him the way the police investigate themselves.

Ah, I see the problem here. Most of us have never been to an event where the police thought they might have to have snipers. Furthermore, any of us who have likely never found themselves in the sniper's crosshairs.

The fact that you have speaks *volumes*.


That's a thing. As I mentioned, I've only ever seen government snipers in the US one time, that was a presidential address that took place outdoors.

I am not aware of ever having seen a sniper or, even, up-armored cops at regular events. I have seen the up-armored cops at protests, almost always in an aggressive posture and they were only ever at left-themed protests. Cops seem to treat the right-wing protests with more general respect.
 
2014-04-24 08:33:28 AM  

dr_blasto: Thunderpipes: Occupy was protesting succesful businessmen who control investing for the entire country, when Democratic policy caused a bump in the stock market. Scumbag liberals with all the corporate gadgets, iPhones, tunes, tampons, etc were crying that the stock market exists.

Bundy is protesting brown shirt activity and tyranny, theft and intimidation by a corrupt, and lawless government (both are literally proven true, but since the DOJ is corrupt, well, nothgin will be done).

You're a clearly a smart feller; I'm glad there are people like you with all the right answers.


Better than left answers.
 
2014-04-24 08:41:30 AM  
The Bundy ranch is protesting the power of the federal government.  OWS was protesting the power of private industry and upset that the Federal government wasn't taking more from the rich to give to the poor.

Seems pretty polar opposite to me.
 
2014-04-24 08:58:36 AM  

Thunderpipes: Bundy is protesting brown shirt activity and tyranny, theft and intimidation by a corrupt, and lawless government (both are literally proven true, but since the DOJ is corrupt, well, nothgin will be done).


So lawless that they won 2 court cases in their favor.  Wait... what?
 
2014-04-24 09:03:09 AM  

dr_blasto: That's a thing. As I mentioned, I've only ever seen government snipers in the US one time, that was a presidential address that took place outdoors.

I am not aware of ever having seen a sniper or, even, up-armored cops at regular events. I have seen the up-armored cops at protests, almost always in an aggressive posture and they were only ever at left-themed protests. Cops seem to treat the right-wing protests with more general respect.



I really don't want to post anything to make it look like I'm on Pedro's side but.

www.theblaze.com
 
2014-04-24 09:31:42 AM  

TNel: dr_blasto: That's a thing. As I mentioned, I've only ever seen government snipers in the US one time, that was a presidential address that took place outdoors.

I am not aware of ever having seen a sniper or, even, up-armored cops at regular events. I have seen the up-armored cops at protests, almost always in an aggressive posture and they were only ever at left-themed protests. Cops seem to treat the right-wing protests with more general respect.


I really don't want to post anything to make it look like I'm on Pedro's side but.

[www.theblaze.com image 456x403]


Well, there's an actual instance. So there's that. Cops shouldn't think this is OK.

I'd hardly call that normal or regular. Neither a DM position nor the Super Bowl.
 
2014-04-24 10:02:40 AM  

Isitoveryet: Hey Libtards,

I bet you're all asking yourselves "why is it that the militia member looks so much more American and patriotic than i could ever look?".


because he is.


/check & crown me


thumbs.newschoolers.com

\visual representation of above message
 
2014-04-24 10:34:30 AM  

Gecko Gingrich: pedrop357: dr_blasto: SO, basically, what I'm reading into this is that, personally, you do not see the brandishing of semi-automatic rifles en masse, taking up sniper positions and the like as a radical escalation of a situation and that you would not recognize the situation as having dramatically escalated were you, say, in the group on the ground at the end of sniper-douche's sights?

I mean, I can imagine that possible, but that strikes me as completely foreign.

If that counts as escalation, then every police presence ever is also considered to be radical escalation.

At various public events where the police set up snipers, I or others in that group have undoubtedly been in their sights.

At least if the ONE guy we saw setting up a sniper position were to shoot someone, there would be a thorough investigation by the DA and police.  The other members of his group (assuming he's in a group) wouldn't get to investigate him the way the police investigate themselves.

Ah, I see the problem here. Most of us have never been to an event where the police thought they might have to have snipers. Furthermore, any of us who have likely never found themselves in the sniper's crosshairs.

The fact that you have speaks *volumes*.


I know, going to Las Vegas Strip on New Years really speaks volumes about me.
 
2014-04-24 10:37:36 AM  

Thunderpipes: Occupy was protesting succesful businessmen who control investing for the entire country


This is what Republicans actually believe!

www.outsidethebeltway.com
 
2014-04-24 10:41:53 AM  

pedrop357: I know, going to Las Vegas Strip on New Years really speaks volumes about me.


And what were you doing to end up in their cross-hairs?
 
2014-04-24 11:00:10 AM  

GoldSpider: What's there to prove or disprove? He said what he said. He's voiced a personal opinion, using (in my opinion) emotionally charged rhetoric that adds zero substance to the discussion of how incidents like the Bundy ranchers should be handled in the future.


Reid properly defined what those protesters are, what their thinking really is that they cannot admit in public, and how society should treat them. The truth obviously hurt, since right wing lunatics like you have been on the defensive 24/7 since the story broke.
 
2014-04-24 11:03:02 AM  

pedrop357: Police snipers regularly have their guns pointed at people without any cause and while I find that offensive, I don't see tons of people claiming that the police are "pointing their guns in the faces of American citizens".


Your first mistake is comparing what the police do and thinking an untrained self described militia member can do exactly the same thing.

"But officer I caught someone speeding so I chased them and tried to pull them over, you do the same thing!"
 
2014-04-24 11:06:20 AM  

Bob Robert: GoldSpider: What's there to prove or disprove? He said what he said. He's voiced a personal opinion, using (in my opinion) emotionally charged rhetoric that adds zero substance to the discussion of how incidents like the Bundy ranchers should be handled in the future.

Reid properly defined what those protesters are, what their thinking really is that they cannot admit in public, and how society should treat them. The truth obviously hurt, since right wing lunatics like you have been on the defensive 24/7 since the story broke.


So let me get this straight, if I don't take the extreme view of this and call them "terrorists", then I am supporting them? You know who else said "if you are not with us, you're against us"?
 
2014-04-24 11:42:16 AM  

Thunderpipes: Occupy was protesting succesful businessmen who control investing for the entire country, when Democratic policy caused a bump in the stock market. Scumbag liberals with all the corporate gadgets, iPhones, tunes, tampons, etc were crying that the stock market exists.

Bundy is protesting brown shirt activity and tyranny, theft and intimidation by a corrupt, and lawless government (both are literally proven true, but since the DOJ is corrupt, well, nothgin will be done).


So successful these businessmen needed bailouts from the government to keep their banks afloat.
 
2014-04-24 11:53:26 AM  

Gecko Gingrich: pedrop357: I know, going to Las Vegas Strip on New Years really speaks volumes about me.

And what were you doing to end up in their cross-hairs?


I don't know if I was in them, but different parts of the crowd certainly were.

Who exactly was in the crosshairs of the guy on the freeway?
 
2014-04-24 11:55:42 AM  

pedrop357: I don't know if I was in them, but different parts of the crowd certainly were.


And what were they doing to end up in the cross-hairs?

pedrop357: Who exactly was in the crosshairs of the guy on the freeway?


Federal agents carrying out a lawful order.
 
2014-04-24 12:00:14 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: pedrop357: I don't know if I was in them, but different parts of the crowd certainly were.

And what were they doing to end up in the cross-hairs?


They were present.

pedrop357: Who exactly was in the crosshairs of the guy on the freeway?

Federal agents carrying out a lawful order.


So, it's not that different from the police pointing guns at law abiding people at events like the Super Bowl, NASCAR, marathons, parades, rallies.
 
2014-04-24 12:06:33 PM  

pedrop357: Gecko Gingrich: pedrop357: I don't know if I was in them, but different parts of the crowd certainly were.

And what were they doing to end up in the cross-hairs?

They were present.

pedrop357: Who exactly was in the crosshairs of the guy on the freeway?

Federal agents carrying out a lawful order.

So, it's not that different from the police pointing guns at law abiding people at events like the Super Bowl, NASCAR, marathons, parades, rallies.


I'm happy to go back and forth with on this you until the thread expires, but it doesn't matter how many times you stamp your feet and indulge your paranoia, you're still going to be wrong in equating a police officer with a gun nut.
 
2014-04-24 01:35:00 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: pedrop357: Gecko Gingrich: pedrop357: I don't know if I was in them, but different parts of the crowd certainly were.

And what were they doing to end up in the cross-hairs?

They were present.

pedrop357: Who exactly was in the crosshairs of the guy on the freeway?

Federal agents carrying out a lawful order.

So, it's not that different from the police pointing guns at law abiding people at events like the Super Bowl, NASCAR, marathons, parades, rallies.

I'm happy to go back and forth with on this you until the thread expires, but it doesn't matter how many times you stamp your feet and indulge your paranoia, you're still going to be wrong in equating a police officer with a gun nut.

img.fark.net



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/21/police-chief-shoots-himself -a gain_n_4638731.html


Why not both?
 
2014-04-24 01:50:39 PM  

GoldSpider: So let me get this straight, if I don't take the extreme view of this and call them "terrorists", then I am supporting them? You know who else said "if you are not with us, you're against us"?


Why is it an extreme view to explain what the word domestic terrorist means, and then show why you are properly applying it to a group? What is this with us or against us bit about? Do you not believe in the English language?
 
2014-04-24 01:51:36 PM  

pedrop357: So, it's not that different from the police pointing guns at law abiding people at events like the Super Bowl, NASCAR, marathons, parades, rallies.


Except for the fact that, you know, they are the POLICE and you are not.
 
2014-04-24 03:18:38 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: pedrop357: I don't know if I was in them, but different parts of the crowd certainly were.

And what were they doing to end up in the cross-hairs?

pedrop357: Who exactly was in the crosshairs of the guy on the freeway?

Federal agents carrying out a lawful order.


You know who else thought they were carrying out lawful orders?
 
2014-04-24 03:44:07 PM  

Deep Contact: You know who else thought they were carrying out lawful orders?


The federal agents at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
 
2014-04-24 06:25:13 PM  

Grognard: Canton: iheartscotch: To be fair. His cow have probably done more for the US than the entirety of the Occupy movement.

/ what's the difference between a cow and a hippy? Cows actually have a purpose.

And the cows might actually fight back.

Cows with guns?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI&feature=kp


That is beautiful. And somehow, I'm not questioning the cows using guns and pondering the gender status of the cow guru. Male in the song, has udders in the animation. Freemartin cow revolutionary is my best guess...
 
Displayed 37 of 387 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report