PROOF
Not all terrorists are Islamic.
(A protester)
Picture by: dunno source Caption by: Cleopatra_Bones via Poster Builder
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous At a certain age | LEAD BY EXAMPLE Next »
» 966 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? Home - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Meh block
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Our favorite activity
Just Capshunz - All of the Internet. Captioned
It's Happening Again!!!
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
The Song of Our People
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Oh Peanut Butter, You Crazy
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Reader Squees: Sleepy Netty at Three Months
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
BANJOVI
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Apple Pie
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
Mayo You Make An Awesome Sandwich On This Day
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
I Shouldn't Have Gone Back To Burma...
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Katy Perry Totally Looks Like Paula Deen
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Epicute: Chocolate Spoons
meh
meh
gaw, so sick of seeing meh……if you truly are indifferent than STFU
meh
mmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhh
mmmeeeehhhhahahaha!
Oh hell, I just heard that damn Numa Numa song in my head.. Thanks Diss..
Sorry, I was going for Evil Goat.
Lah ah deee, lah de dah….
Just for that:
Mi-a-hii
Mi-a-huu
Mi-a-haa
Mi-a-ha ha
OK
Do you know the song?
Yes. (The male voice in the song says OK)
Meh
How is that proof?
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!! The letters are soooo big and red!! I’m terrorized!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Make it stooooooooooop!!
For now, he’ll beat you with the sign. But just you wait! Next time, it’ll be a bigger sign with a picture of a gun! *Runs away, waving arms & screaming*
Next time, I’m bringing a gun to this lol!!
I don’t need one, I keep it in my closet.
This guy is the UN of terrorism… his next threat will be a sign quoting a non-binding resolution
Terrorism = using violence or the threat of violence to incluence the actions of others.
(Oxford Canadian English Dictionary)
threatening to bring guns is an act of terrorism
PROOF.
Keep reading that dictionary, chief; you don’t quite have it nailed down yet.
What did I miss?
Please let me know, so I can close any holes.
This seems pretty open and shut to me – he’s threatening violence (guns) unless the protest he’s in attains its goals (whatever that may be). That’s an act of terrorism, whether he pulls the trigger or not.
First off, there’s no single universally recognized definition of terrorism, so you’re going to have to reach beyond one line in the OED to tackle this one. So, instead, let’s look at some typical criteria:
* Violence: I can see how a Canadian might miss some of the cultural overtones here, so let’s just say that it’s just as easy to interpret this in ways that reference the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, the president’s notoriously gun-unfriendly hometown, or the selective media coverage given to gun arrests at rallies based on the holder’s race and political affiliation. This one is a qualified “maybe” at best.
* Psychological impact and fear: Again, a “maybe” at best. (If it said “I left my bomb vest at home…this time”, then you’d have a point.)
* Political goal: Yep, this is (probably) a political rally of some sort. Someone downthread suggested it was from a water protest in California; I don’t know.
* Deliberate targeting of non-combatants: This is the biggie — absolutely not. Even if you think he’s implying violence, he’s not implying shooting random people in the street.
So, no, not terrorism.
Now, if his sign said “I left my rental truck full of fertilizer and diesel fuel at home….Or DID I?” there’d be a much better case for calling him a terrorist.
Or a farmer who is on the way to fertilize his fields and needs the fuel for his tractor. Just saying….
….and good luck to him trying to explain that one to the feds anymore.
I concede your point about maybe not knowing some of the political overtones, butI have a few more questions…
Do you consider non-combatants to be
1) Police?
2) Politicians?
3) Fellow protesters who may be caught in the crossfire?
Does he have to explicitly name someone to be considered a terrorist?
I would consider a sniper to be a terrorist, and he may not intend to hit non-combatants. Do you?
Does it matter that if I saw a sign like that at protests I attend (anti-Neo-Nazi, anti-homophobia, etc. ) I would think twice about attending the next one, whether the person who was holding it was protesting with or againt me?
The sniper wouldn’t make a sign, and smile for the camera assuming everyone would know he’s making a political point.
The sniper would actually hurt people and spread terror.
“The sniper wouldn’t make a sign, and smile for the camera assuming everyone would know he’s making a political point.”
You mean that Bin Laden isn’t a terrorist because he makes videos of himself?
Your first and second questions assume that, not only will he bring a gun to the next rally, he intends to use it in support of his views. I flatly reject that assumption without further proof.
Your third question doesn’t make sense in context. The DC snipers were most certainly terrorists. A Taliban or AQI sniper, on the other hand, is not a terrorist, but an enemy or non-state combatant.
No, your personal feelings don’t matter, mostly because he’s expressing his ability to do something that is (most probably) legal anyway. (As someone downthread pointed out, depending on the state, it’s likely that some of the women in the crowd were carrying concealed pistols in their purses for personal protection as a matter of course.)
The Supreme Court has just decided to hear a case on whether the 2nd Amendment should be incorporated through the 14th Amendment to the states. Therefore, soon it may not depend on what state you live as all states will be required to show how any anti-gun law is strictly tailored to effectuate a compelling state interest in order to stand up to constitutional scrutiny. Just an FYI.
As a resident of a gun-unfriendly yet increasingly violent city (with lots of gun crime — who’d have thunk it?), I’m paying attention to that case.
DC or Chicago?
Chicago. (And as a new resident, I’m loving that ~11% unemployment, too.)
Still beating Detroit at 16%. Funny how they’re both in the NFC North.
That should be changing soon; the Chicago handgun law is before the SC this session; with the recent precedent of District of Columbia v. Heller, it looks very likely that it will be overturned. Of course, this raises additional questions about how the federal constitution interrelates with state and local law. Pretty interesting stuff.
You’ve got some COOL stuff there, though! Been to the Field Museum yet?
Yeah, the implications seem interesting, even to a legal know-nothing like me.
I’ve been through as a tourist loads of times, so I’ve hit most of the sights. The new wing of the Art Institute is next on my list.
ILPB – latest reports are actually saying detroit is at about 28% unemployment but michigan’s average is 16% which means that a few places like a2 are doing ok to pull the number into not “holy crap that’s really atrocious” levels.
I’d say anything over 10% to me is OH CRAP there’s no Walmart?
Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them.
Yeah, lets go back to the days when everyone was packing heat and shot up anyone they thought was a threat, despite the innocents just walking around town.
You realize that the old West style shootout didn’t exist, right? Most towns were fairly safe, relatively speaking….
only after the women showed up and made the men put away their guns.
I’m sorry, Charlie, I love you to death, but I have to *snerk* at that
Women got a lot of respect in those days, oh yes they did….
Besides, Froo, I watched all the Hopalong Cassidy shows, and Matt Dillon — Hollywood wouldn’t lie, would they?
Hey, Froo, my woman makes me put away my guns… well some of them!
This is my Rifle, this is my gun…..
..this is for shooting, this is for fun. (I couldn’t leave it alone)
What the hell paralleluniverse do you live in
Gun crimes where very very low whene every one carried guns for the simple fact that if some nut job did decided to go shooting up the OK corral they would have got gunned down by all the law abiding citizens …the big gun fights are a thing of the movies
We’ve seen in Iraq and Afghanistan that car bombs and backpack bombs are much more effective at fighting authority than hand guns and rifles, if you want to bear arms as a protection against the government you should be defending the right of the recent terrorist suspects to mix up semtex in their bathtub.
Plus you should support the right of criminals to own guns, otherwise the whole “protection from the government” idea is pointless seeing as how the government decides who the criminals are.
As much as I hate to say, I agree with Dhoti completely. This guy is no terrorist. He’s just some guy who seems to think making a smart ass sign about bringing arms to whatever rally this is is clever.
Peter Ustinov said “Terrorism is the war of the poor. War is the terrorism of the rich.”
When GWB said “shock and awe” I guarantee I wasn’t the only one who said “and this differs from terrorism precisely how?”
When the war started a general (wish I knew his name) was asked about the innocent people who were Collateral Damage. He said he just thinks about all of the innocents who died during 9/11. Responding to terrorism with terrorism. Yeah, that’ll work.
Terrorism is what people/organizations/governments use to elicit terror. Period.
“Shock and awe” was seriously underdone.
Also, it wasn’t “responding to terrorism with terrorism”, unless you considering hitting back to be along the same lines. If someone punches you, do you just ball up and take it? I guarantee that your first response will be anger, coupled with thoughts of hitting the dumbass back as hard as possible. That’s not terrorism, that’s fighting back.
What would have had to happen before you could say Shock and Awe was successful?
Re: hitting back. The history of The Middle East in general and the city of Jerusalem in particular carries over 5,000 years of someone hitting back.
So are you saying your premise is that revenge trumps everything else? Would you care to debate me on the Death Penalty? Just fry anyone you can get your hands on so I can have closure, whether they did it or not. This is precisely what Shock and Awe did. Somewhere in the vicinity of half a million people who were in no way whatsoever even remotely connected to 9/11 were obliterated.
And what if for every innocent human being that was slaughtered there was at least one family member who prior to that did not hate America?
If someone punches me I don’t turn around and punch someone smaller than me who can’t defend himself.
1st paragraph: Shock and Awe was done incorrectly. The massive counter attack never really materialized, and left us with a bunch of idiots running around saying “nyah nyah nyah, missed me!!!” while others who shouldn’t have died did. It reeked of bombing an aspirin factory or something.
2nd paragraph: We’re not discussing the history of the Middle East. We’re talking about essentially a third world terrorist organization taking on a first world (is that even a term?) industrialized leader in the world because they are the Great Satan and must be destroyed. There is a huge difference in hitting back and applying just enough force to keep your opponent from being able to retaliate in kind, and waging a holy war because you think that someone is unworthy of living, like in the Middle East. That is a tit for tat type of war that has been going on for centuries and is more akin to brothers duking it out over the last cupcake than being similar to a kid with a stick trying to take out a much larger adult.
3rd paragraph: Hitting back is not revenge. There is a big difference in the two concepts. I will not debate you on the death penalty because that is a completely different subject and has no bearing here. We’re talking about answering a first strike during a war, not about meting out justice with a legal system.
4th paragraph: What ifs are not something you can legitimately argue in this situation. If you want to go down that road, what if every single one of those innocents slaughtered in the Twin Towers had at least one family member so feverishly pissed off at the loss of their loved one that they wanted to turn the country of the aggressor into a parking lot?
5th paragraph: Neither does anyone else. The war was woefully mishandled (IMO), but it isn’t akin to punching someone to the right of the person who punched you. We are still in Afghanistan, which is where we know the attacks originated. Just because the kid who punched you to begin with is smaller than you doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be restrained and “taught a lesson” for being too stupid not to pick on someone closer to his own size.
….so feverishly pissed off at the loss of their loved one that they wanted to turn the country of the aggressor into a parking lot?
You mean Saudi Arabia?
Oh for pete’s sake! All you can throw at me in answer is a left-wing conspiracy theory?
Well.. Bush DID cause 9/11 I’m just sayin’
Of course! Haven’t you heard the scrubbed tapes of him making the phone call to Bin Ladin and the Saudi Princes, who were working in tandem to get kolaches to their struggling third world country??!!?!???!!?!??
But seriously… I was under the assumption that when a bully hits you… you waste everyone in the proximity with a frag grenade, and THAT is how you get respect.
why of course max, otherwise your a terrorist and the terrorists win
Anybody wanna hit me?
*pulls a grenade pin out and holds it in his gritted teeth*
ANYONE?!
-wacks max with his wiffle bat-
I’m suddenly reminded of the Reno 911 movie, and I’m scared.
Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were subjects of Saudi Arabia. Mohammad Atta was from Egypt. Two hijackers were from the United Arab Emirates and one was from Lebanon. Those numbers are not theoretical.
*immediately throws the grenade which somehow bounces and lands right in the “Orphan Jewish Nun” bus*
Aw crap…..
*hollywood explosion*
THAT… WAS…. AWESOME!!!
its like a Michael bay movie!
where is the troops and the cuts to the control room?
…So, 500,000 civilians were killed by american soldiers? is that some kind of sick joke? Or perhaps you were referring to the terrorists killing their fellow countrymen for … whatever they killed them for, voting, i guess…
Well since I don’t actually agree with him, don’t get too bent out of shape, but There was no connection to the attacks on the USA on Sept 11, 2001, and they really wouldn’t have been fighting each other if we hadn’t stepped into the wrong country. Just sayin’
LOL. You’re a moron. I carry a gun everyday and do not participate in violence. Try again kiddo.
(Assuming you carry it legally and with the proper documentation)
Do you threaten people with it in order to further your own goals?
This guy isn’t even carrying one. He isn’t saying he’s going to shoot people. We don’t even know if he’s trying to further his goals.
You’re from Canada, aren’t you?
Yes.
Does that invalidate any of my questions?
Yes.
*snerk*
*snerk* *snort*
Above responses to dennis4king adding to the tendency of Canadians to claim the national motto of “We’re not the USA”.
you didn’t translate that into canadian… dennis will have NO idea what you said.
the proper translation is “yes. eh?”
Welcome back..long time no see
No.
It could mean that you have the advantage of not being mired in a culture that is so bloodthirsty it will justify some really stupid stuff. It’s a seeing the forest for the trees kind of thing.
It could mean the media you consume isn’t run by megacorporations like Disney or Westinghouse. (Love Peter Mansbridge and Rick Mercer.)
It might imply that your history classes mentioned how weird it is to see the neighbor country get into some ridiculous situations. Vietnam comes to mind.
Or your history classes mentioned the War of 1812. Our classes don’t teach it because we can never admit that we actually lost a war, right?
There are some people in the States who don’t think that only their own opinions are valid. How many of those people are denizens of this forum? And I’m from Seattle so I get to ask that.
shikzoid (shiknoid): Where do I begin?
“Bloodthristy culture”, well I wouldn’t say that, I’m well below my liberal hunting allowance for the month, I think my thirst is somewhat quenched. Seriously though you come off as sort of an arrogant prick, kinda like Michael Moore.
Yeah you know that EVIL right wing conspiracy of the media. The media that is roasting Obama on a regular basis, not pushing ANY liberal agendas, the EVIL CORPORATION media that helped to get the 2nd most liberal President elected. DAMN THAT right wing conspiracy.
Yeah you know those crazy Canucks who basically lived under the US umbrella of protection throughout the entire Cold War. But I’m guessing the Cold War was America’s fault, and we should have lost that one, right comrade? Don’t get me started on Vietnam, I’ve been there and trounced greater oppenents than you on the subject.
Actually we didn’t lose the War of 1812. If we had we’d be a British Colony today. If we had won we’d have Canada. It’s kind of like that whole stalemate think (Look up Korea).
Yeah they’re called ego maniac extremist. Both sides have them. You might want to look in the mirror.
Ask anyone here I can deal with the liberal side of an arguement, but when you start getting all high and mighty, you have already lost.
Was 0f !812 – You failed in your military objective of annexing Canada. Most people would call that losing.
The main reason Britain didn’t manage to roll over you was this guy called Napoleon Boneparte; Yes, that’s right, you had your butts saved by the French!
Paws: British objective was to retake the US back as British Colonies. Also the War of 1812 was also about the British infringing on US Sailors during trade routes. IE taking over US vessels and “annexing” the crews. Funny how that seemed to stop after War of 1812. Also it’s more of a “foreign” belief we were after Canada, we really wanted Ohio, Michigan, and Illinois (from the British supplied Indians).
The reason the British didn’t “roll over” the US was not just b/c of Napoleon. The British once again refused to realize the stubborness of a rag tag bunch of farmers willingness to fight. The British did a defensive campaign until the war with Napoleon was done, then they sent veterans to fight. Somehow the veterans didn’t manage much success either. Sorry have to disagree b/c Napoleon was only during the beginning of the War of 1812 (which ironically ended in 1815).
Napoleon didn’t have anything to do with the Battle of New Orleans, which was the last great battle of the War of 1812, and we won that battle decisively led by Andrew Jackson. It was an American victory like many in the Revolutionary war and WWII where our soldiers were outnumbered and outgunned but we fought with heart and won.
We gave the British back the land we took, but they gave us back even more land that they had taken from us. We managed to hold the Louisiana Purchase.
We (Left) get high and mighty because we are annoyed. You don’t spend all day hearing about the stupid crap your side pulls without getting embittered.
-Michael Moore is right more often than people give him credit for, he’s not arrogant, he’s passionate.
-We don’t claim (or I don’t) that there is a Right wing media conspiracy, just fox news, there is a Capitalist Plotocrat conspiracy to dominate the world though, (Moore’s new film about it actually comes out today.)
Also, we (Canadians) also may get overly sanctimonious, but that’s the backlash from America’s constant downplaying our contributions and importance:
-1812? You’re right, a draw. Everybody, stop saying “we” won (whoever you are).
-We ended WW2 with the fourth-largest Navy in the world, and have had our own cutting-edge Nuclear technology since the beginning, we would have been fine. Also, it was your fault. If you had used your four-year head start on Nuke weapons to maintain pressure on the Soviet Union and not assumed they didn’t have the “know-how” to make them, they might not have gotten them, or at least gotten them later when they were in a much weaker position and/or had a more moderate government.
In addition,
-Our trade is responsible for millions of American Jobs
-We’re the third largest force in Afghanistan, our forces are small, but they’re still 23rd out of 192 nations, with just 1.1% of GDP spent on it.
-We innovate a great deal, our low temp reactor designs were chosen by India for all their plants for safety. Also, half the engineers for the Apollo program came from the Canadian fighter program widely believed to have been killed by pressure from threatened American aerospace industry lobbyists and the US Gov’t.
Starting to get the picture?
PS, The power of truth is that I can get high and mighty and still win, but I’d still prefer to get mighty high.
Ok your first statement makes NO sense to me. Why are you embittered again? The right wing is the side that gets ridiculed more than the left.
Sorry disagree there. Michael Moore is a propagandist. I’ve read most of his stuff (know thy enemy). He’s full of crap more often than not b/c there is such a large bias in his work. Plus he does not know the US constitution at all.
America does down play most of Canada’s contributions, however I’m trying to think of some. I try and give credit where credit is due. Y’al had some of the best Special Forces.
1812: Thank You about time.
Not so sure about the millions of jobs from Canadian trade. need some more research.
Thank you for having 1/10th of the troops we have in the area. But that’s def worth bragging about. PArt of the reason y’all never needed a large military was b/c you were under the American and British protective umbrella.
I understand that Canada has contributed some great things to the world, Molson, Senators.. etc… I just think it’s funny how you talk about three or four items Canada has done when I could list thousands of contributions America has made. Possibly that’s where the down play is.
Word.
If you start a presentation with such a ridiculous (run-on) sentence you’re going to shoot your credibility in the foot before you even get started.
Dear Peanut Butter faan,
Okay.
Rush (the Hindenburg) said he’s never met a liberal who wasn’t unhappy. Mention his name and yes, we get pissed. He lies constantly. Yank on my German Shepard’s tail for a couple of days.
Tell me precisely what facts Michael Moore got wrong. You defend the first amendment when it comes to expressing your opinion, even when it’s based on Faux “News”. Expressing opinions based on facts? Not so much.
Also, what part of the Constitution does Michael Moore not understand? Article and/or Amendment please.
Contributions. The telephone (look it up), insulin, basketball (Dr. Naismith was a canuck), IMAX, kerosene, Plexiglass, the walkie-talkie, SONAR, amplitude modulation and…..
PEANUT BUTTER!
Here’s a short (but growing) list of a fact-check of the newest Michael Moore movie. This site is non-partisan.
{http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/michael-moore/}
Even on his almost true statements he still exaggerates to the point that he can’t even get a truth rating on them.
Here’s the actual link to the movie fact check. The first link I posted dealt with statements about and by Moore.
{http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/oct/01/michael-moore-movie-factcheck/}
lets make this simple
you can carry a gun all day long, you can use it to defend yourself, to hunt or target practice, you can even scratch your butt with it.
you pull a gun out and demand we vote the way you do…then your doing the wrong thing with a gun. your useing fear, threats of violence to get what you want and enforce your will.
thats terrorism…didnt anyone else watch the family guy episiod of south park?
For those liberal mushrooms (kept in the dark, fed lots of crap) who don’t know what this guy’s sign is about. Remember the townhall meeting where protesters came with their Conceal Carry weapons not consealed (ie visibe)–that’s what he’s talking about. He’s not threatening anything.
For the Mushroom Troll: Maybe if you knew how to spell “concealed” (and “visible”) correctly the same way in one sentence, and were able to construct a coherent thought (or sentence), and weren’t a pompous a$$hat we MIGHT consider your thoughts on this subject.
Oh right, I forgot, any typos makes a person’s insights irrelevant. Go back a month or two and read the news and you’ll know what this guy’s sign is about. How about we look into things a little before accusing one of our own of being a terrorist.
A mushroom is honestly what best describes the vast majority of liberals (including who captioned this). It was not intended to be a flame or I would have used something more direct as you did.
Ultimately this was a typical internet reply that opposes your view, find something wrong with the spelling or grammar then disregard the whole post and flame the guy. Typically this is where one party mentions the age of the other party, but I’ll keep my assumptions to myself.
Typos do not necessarily render your insights irrelevant, they just make you appear sloppy about presenting your case. When a person can’t be bothered to proofread his entry before hitting Add Comment I figure he’s just blathering.
And, as for flaming someone who opposes your view, what you are describing is called an ad hominem attack. It’s used when an opinion can’t rest on anything stronger than a derogatory portrayal of one’s opponent.
When teabaggers paint a Hitler mustache on a picture of Obama s/he is launching an ad hominem attack. It has already been observed that the yahoo holding the sign in the picture above hasn’t exactly made it clear what his particular issue is. I wouldn’t be surprised if he just had that sort of “Obama isn’t my president” mentality – and if we said something like that about GWB we’d get yelled at about Hating America or some such (ad hominem) thing.
“A mushroom is honestly what best describes the vast majority of liberals (including who captioned this). It was not intended to be a flame or I would have used something more direct as you did.”
Wait, you’re calling liberals “mushrooms,” but that’s not a flame of any kind? Are you a moron?
Liburals make mario get big and strong?
It means one of three things:
1. We make Mario big & strong.
2. We have a 1-Up.
3. Hippies eat us and freak out.
I’d freak out if I found out I was a pacifist cannibal too!
“Man…the shrooms are talking to me…these must be really good. What do you think, Mario?”
i don’t get it, how can libs be mushrooms now when last summer we were the over educated elitists??? there is a dichotomy there that i’m not getting…
Actually Dhoti, though his wording isn’t specific the gist of it is correct. Perhaps YOU should keep reading, moron.
Even if you don’t agree with Dhoti, the fact that he didn’t name himself “HatesMorons” means I’m going to take him more seriously. You didn’t even make a point.
“threatening to bring guns is an act of terrorism”
Where does it say he is going to bring a gun next time? If I was going to fight the government I would come armed with the constitution and a few lawyers (much worse than a firearm)
WIN!
(Or at least I hope you win)
I guess squirrel and deer think I’m a terrorist.
1. He said he was unarmed this time. Simply arming himself would not be an act of violence. There were other protesters this summer who went to other protests armed and weren’t arrested because they did not commit any acts of violence. The only arrest I heard about were the union thugs who beat up the guy for handing out “don’t tread on me” flags.
2. To constitute a threat it has to be explicit, not implicit. He didn’t say next time he would start shooting people, he really didn’t even say next time he would be armed. He just implied that he may be armed the next time.
3. Look at the Black Panthers, one of which was armed, who stood outside of a voting place on election day in their Black Panther uniforms to intimidate McCain voters. That would come much closer to a threat because of what they wore and what they had with them. I’m pretty sure that if a Klansman had done that he would have been put in prison for a hate crime, but since it was the Black Panthers Obama let them drop the charges. But since you are a liberal I’m sure you didn’t have a problem with that.
Voter intimidation is a crime.
And they actively kept people out, which is another crime.
I never heard that… That’s redanculus…
First czars, now this — you should read more.
Link in my name.
But… he doesn’t read the news, he only looks at concrete documents… Of course they’re kind of heavy to lift.
They are, you need to get a forklift to turn the pages! On a serious note, I’ve been busy lately and I never cared much for all the BS surrounding the election, so I tend to be somewhat under-informed on certain things.
Actually, they already had a default judgment against them for voter intimidation because they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. So yes, they did do something illegal. Obama’s crew dismissed the case after it was already won. They did tell the guy with the bat that he couldn’t carry it around a voting place for 3 years. Which is convenient, because Obama won’t be up for re-election until the Black Panther’s ban on carrying a weapon at a voting place runs out.
The only hypothetical in there was the Klansman and even if you throw that out the other arguments are still valid.
It is pathetic that liberals would say that the Black Panther’s didn’t “technically” do anything illegal when they committed what the Village Voice (a far left publication) called “the most blatant form of voter intimidation I’ve ever seen”, and at the same time say that a conservative is a terrorist because he brought a sign that said he was unarmed “this time”.
1. If a liberal carried that sign to a GWB rally he would have been investigated by the Secret Service as a threat to the President.
2. Your hair-splitting dichotomy between explicit and implicit is arbitrary. It is not where I would put it.
3. The Black Panthers collapsed in the early 1970s. And although they did have a logo they never had a uniform. Shall I interpret your use of the term to refer to any group that is over 50% African-American?
I want to know EXACTLY where and when these voter intimidations occurred. Not just that FOX said they occurred.
Never let the facts get in the way of the truth.
Nice post! I remember the Bobby Seal trial when I lived in New Haven back in ’70 — ’71. Not a pretty time.
The “incident” took place a couple blocks from me (I go to Temple U. They were actually there, so there you go.
Link — Google is your friend. The Philadelphia case is as easily researchable. (Twenty seconds and I had a YouTube video.) I’ll leave that as an exercise to the “truth seeker”.
Google? Youtube? That just counts as fox news.
And you guys rail us for the whole “Gore/Bush” thing… sheesh.
Wow.. all I can say is OMFG!
Charlie, you know my politics, and probably have a good idea of where I stand on most issues. But I’ve got to give that guy credit for leaving most of the people totally speechless. A long with that, I’m more curious since I moved out of the States when GWB was still president, is this a national trend with Republicans? Because if it is, I’m seriously rethinking my registration. These people are not like the Republicans I knew when I lived there. I think both of my parents would be shocked at the level of stupidity if they were both alive today.
Eddie, no, not all, just those who pray to the new God of Fox news (and PK’s Trolls). But the number is laarge, who do you think were shouting at the so-called town hall meetings. I mean think about it, have your seen any of Fox’s Teenie-bopper TV shows? What do you think Fox is all about, any way to snesationalize things to make money, it’s just that there are some fools who actually believe them.
*walks away kicking his spell checker*
It’s okay, you haven’t spelled extraordinaire right yet.
Still, I would have to guess that in that entire crowd of protestors there had to be at least a handful of rational people. The one guy that was trying equate Obama with the anti-Christ was really grasping at some straws.
*sigh*
I hate to say it, but maybe I’ll just become an Indie but value the beliefs of the original Mod-Reps and not one of these flaming dumbasses in the video.
Go ahead, join us indie’s, we like company.
Can I keep my card as a souvenir?
You becha, did I tell you that I can see Russia from Indiana?
Please, I’m sure this was a case of SELECTIVE interviewing for propaganda purposes. Don’t be so easily fooled. You know the level of intelligence of the conservatives on this board don’t you? I’m sure that is the majority. Did you happen to see the youtube videos of the people who voted for Obama? Maybe Iwill try and find a link for that.
I bet you can find something on Fox News.
Exaaaaaaaaaactly, you made my point for me, thanks.
No, I made my point for me.
No, you made my point, your vid was propaganda and I said I could find something similar on my side of the aisle. I did by the way, something that makes Obama voters look as stupid as the ones in the vid above.
Well, I could play the I know you are but what am I game with you, but I won’t. Especially after watching the crying and moaning and shouting at the so-called health care sideshows, and the crying and moaning and shouting about the President propaganizing the youth with his message on taking personal responsibility for their own education, imagine that, the President encouraging young people to study and stay in school, how socialist is that?
Ok, I won’t play it either, but I wasn’t playing it in the first place. I was just showing you that anyone’s point of view can be made to look stupid, and I believe that vid was propaganda and they interveiwed the most obnoxiously stupid ones they could find to make the entire group look bad. One bad apple can spoil the whole bunch, you’re a teacher, you should know that.
Of course it’s selective. But I live in an overly GOP area and it is not rare. Additionally having watched the manical overreaction at the so-called health-care town halls in the area I know the GOP continues to employ scare tactics and many run-of-the-mill republicans are not bothering to use the “reasonable person” rule of thumb nor stopping to think for themselves.
Here’s a link… Obama supporters voting for Obama because the troops should stay in Iraq and finish the war and Sarah Palin is his VP, lol!
Is Charlie Foxtrot a teacher? I hope he doesn’t teach English. That would explain why public education is going down the drain.
Nope, can’t speak no anglish — my guess is that you’re a moron, guess that’s why the re-pubic-can party is going down the drain.
Of course as a guest, you do know that you’re like fried fish, you both stink immediately.
your father was a hamster and your mother smells of elderberries.
To be perfectly honest, I’ve been around PK now for quite awhile and given the extent of most of the comments from Republicans, I’m not overly surprised at the people that were interviewed. It would seem that this is not a selective cross section of the right-wing, but an overall commentary on the mentality of the state of the party. I have a feeling that a lot Republicans we see today are a result of the Clinton era. The people that I know who have been Republicans for more than 20 years don’t seem to have this same level of stupidity.
So, you don’t beleive that was selective interviewing? Like the link I put up above? Because it can be done for any viewpoint to make any proponents of anything look stupid.
Damn, eddie, that’s scary — read my post that I sent at the same time. BTW, I really am an indie, not kidding, it’s just that this video shows what’t been happening to the GOP in recent years and until they start to get some reasonable approach to business and leave the default “NO” response behind, I am wgoing to continue to work against them. They are killing America.
Right, how are they killing it, the Dems are in charge.
By using scare tactics to influence a good number of voters and constituents.
What I find rather deplorable are in the discussions in the senate where the minority leader says things like “I find it frightening that people are hearing such and such” or “It’s disturbing that there are people who hear such and such”
So instead of shutting this fear down to put out the truth and to get something working that will HELP a good many more than it will hurt, you peddle the fear by propagating these rumors instead of just simply saying “People are hearing such and such, which is true under subsection ” Or vice versa. Don’t just bring up rumors… either support them with evidence or shut them down by the same means.
That’s how you destroy America, and at the moment, the republicans in the senate and house would rather shut down democratic plans, than pass something that could make ALL of them look and maybe feel good for once.
What’s really scary m3 is that damn near everyone of those people when pressed for a reason they believed this, that, or the other couldn’t come up with any sort of valid reason. Again, yes it was selective, but the responses were the same type of hysteria you read about even around here.
Well, maybe that’s true Eddie, but that doesn’t mean that valid reasons don’t exist. Those are just every day people, they aren’t newscasters or TV stars. They may flub up an interview or make stupid comments, I still think all of them have the best interest of this country at heart. Not the best foot forward, but I understand where they are coming from.
If you don’t know WHY you’re supporting something, then you’re an idiot. I’ll even channel Fester and say cretin. You DON’T want to call these everyday people, mmm. You want to toss them aside as the fringe because if these are your everyday people, then your party is FVCKED. These are the kool-aid drinkers. They may want what’s best for the country, but do they even know what that is???
Did you listen to the link I posted above Rando about the people who voted for Obama and why? Just take a listen, care to explain them to me?
m3, the problem I have isn’t with the people that were interviewed. My problem is that this type of response seems to have invaded the GOP as a whole. People will say they don’t like the healthcare plan. Most of the time (not always) the person starts spinning hyperbole to the point where they forget the context of the original debate. Those are the people that Rando is referring to, and despite what side of the aisle you’re on, if you don’t know why you’re supporting something, my suggestion is sit down and shut the f*ck up. Either that, or put a little bit more effort into learning what the issues are.
Now I’m going to qualify everything I have said before by stating that I am a Moderate Republican. But honest to God, I don’t know what has happened to the Party I have been a part of since I could vote. I’m pretty much done with ‘em since I seem to be a minority within the ranks.
Hmm, I haven’t noticed that about the GOP myself, I’m a Democrat btw, a very conservative one though.
mmmm a Blue Dog!!! How’s Toby Keith doing?
Eddie, Maxwell, et all, Please stop with the GOP uses fear tactics. The Democratic Party uses it as well. How about Obama using fear to get the Stimulous passed. How about Pelosi and Obama saying millions of people will die if we don’t pass health care reform. How about all the people who say Bush is bad and stupid and you ask them and all you get is, “Well he is”. BOTH sides have idiots that just tote the party line. The politicians and media feed off of it, so don’t blame the GOP and ignore the Dems when they do it.
Where where you yesterday!!??
Bwahahaa!!! Socialism, fascism, and communism are interchangeable! That’s AWESOME! *snort*
Oh, and I don’t know who the interviewer is, but he’s already more awesome than Michael Moore.
Hmm, that’s not much of a compliment in my book!
Funny how this says at the end that the only thing standing in the way of the universal health care in America is the medical-industrial complex, which doesn’t make sense because the insurance companies and drug making compaines are signed on to the idea of national health care. It would be more money for them. People who don’t want insurance would be forced to pay for it. Drup companies could sell more drugs because we would all be paying for it. Also, right wing propaganda machine? What’s that and what purpose would it serve? It would behoove government, Dems and Repubs to have more money and power over us. It doesn’t add up.
Right wing propoganda= Fox New= These maniacs.
Left wing propoganda = MSNBC = Those maniacs.
News = propaganda… can we all move on now?
Or at least spell it correctly?
It’s good to know that no one is clinging to their guns and religion.
But Obama says they are, and he knows, he is all knowing.
Well, some are, at least it’s not a complete lie. That’s about as much as anyone could expect from a politician.
1. Obama is the president who had a web site where you could turn in people for speaking out against his health care overhaul. I don’t want to hear your conspiracy theories on W I’m bored with it.
2. You can call it “hair-splitting dichotomy”if you want, but if you would study the law you would realize that it is full of “hair-splitting dichotomy” that modifies and specifies to make the law more clear. So yes, the implicit threat is necessary to constitute a crime.
3. The original Black Panthers may have collapsed in the early 70′s, but there is a new Black Panther group. You can google image the New Black Panthers and you will see that they are still here and they do wear uniforms.
4. If you didn’t watch liberal news all the time you would know this, but here are some links that aren’t Fox News so you can read up on it for yourself.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/01/justice-department-chided-in-panther-probe/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/
The one above has a video.
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/09/11/justice-department-takes-a-second-look-at-new-black-panthers-voter-intimidation-case/
This article is from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is a left-leaning group. On their site it even says “Keeping an eye on the Radical Right.”
http://www.newblackpanther.com/statement-voterintimidation_phillychapter.html
From the New Black Panther Party themselves.
HERE ARE THE SPECIFICS:
Where: 1221 Fairmount Ave
Philadelphia, PA 19123
When: November 4th, 2008 (Election Day)
Who: Samir Shabazz (Had the billy club)
What they did: They attempted to control the voting public. Wearing black military style uniforms they stood guard in front of a Philadelphia voting place, wielding nightsticks and using intimidating language including racial slurs. Bartle Bull (A civil rights advocate) said that one of them barked, “now you’ll find out what it’s like to be ruled by a black man, cracker.” He claimed he had witnessed ropes hanging from trees but had never encountered such egregious physical voter intimidation in all of his years as a civil rights advocate.
That is the difference between people like me and people like you. I actually verify the facts before I decide what the truth is. You should give Fox News a try. There are a lot of liberals watching it now because they know that Fox will report on the things that the other networks won’t touch. Whether you agree with them politically or not they will at least keep you informed.
Sorry, on point 2. I meant the Explicit threat, not Implicit. My mistake.
i didn’t even get past your first point – do tell where this site is? link it please, would ya?
I don’t know where the site is, but I remember Obama talking about it.
There are a lot of hysterical emails being forwarded from cretin to cretin, asserting that Obama wants to kill your granny and what not. Obama’s team thinks they come from certain well funded organizations, and asked that those emails be forwarded to a central location where they could be tracked.
Personally, I’m all for it.
I’m all for death panels too. What are we talking about?
There is a serious question as to the Constitutionality of said site, which is why I’m not sure it exists anymore. According to the rules of information (I’ve blanked on the actual term) for things coming into the Archives, the emails have to be kept for a certain period of time. When a reporter asked about what was being done with the emails and the information contained within (such as usernames, actual names, locations), Robert Gibbs wasn’t able to give an answer. There was also issue with people who DID NOT forward these so-called inflammatory emails to the White House getting response emails from David Axelrod asking anyone associated with the emails why they were forwarding bad information. Now, if you didn’t forward the email to the White House site, would you not be a little worried about getting unsolicited emails from the government (or a representative thereof) as to your motivations behind sending a forward? It reeked of Big Brother.
And no one could explain the actual need for it. After all, all kinds of emails went out during other presidential administrations, and it was all chalked up to patriotic dissent, if not just bad information. Why is this administration so damn touchy about it?
Also, the messages forwarded to the site went to the Archives (if I’m not mistaken), which by law have to be kept for so many years. Do you really want the anonymity of your online persona taken away from you by some snoop in the Archives 20 years from now?
And Robert Gibbs never gave a good answer.
“There is a serious question as to the Constitutionality of said site, which is why I’m not sure it exists anymore”
You’re kidding me, right? It’s legal to search my home without serving me a warrant, to tap my phone without obtaining a warrant, and to archive all my emails and text messages for future keyword searches… but it’s not legal to track the trash being produced by nutcase think tanks? Sorry, Froo, but I think you’re off the rails on this one.
As far as your last paragraph: I’m already concerned about that. Folks need to realize we live in that world already.
I can’t decide whether you’re trying to respond with a classic “BUSH!” or just phone it in and vote “present”.
But wait a minute…you’re the same schmuck who condemns Republicans and defends Democrats for torture in the same breath, right? So no surprise, then, that your surveillance state wet dreams (that were no doubt TEH EBIL when Cheney was in charge) are suddenly nothing more than ways to backhandedly support Obama.
It would be funny, if you weren’t allowed to vote or own property.
Like the government.
I agree, I do like the government, well the current one anyway.
*likes the government* Jeesh did you have to be so demanding about it?
The 2nd Amendment is the reset button to the US Constitution.
for the states, oh they tried that once, lets go back to 1860.
If at first you don’t secede, try, try again…
Don’t make us take the leash off of Stonewall again!
God let him get killed to keep us from conquering Canada. And then we wouldn’t have that neat bacon they make!
*drools* Mmmmmm bacon. Bacon makes everything better.
my funk and wagnalls defines terrorism as
1 the act of terrorizing
2 a system of government that seeks to rule by intimidation
3 unlawful acts of violence committed in an organized attempt to overthrow a government.
so lets see he doesn’t yet appear terrorizing so that’s out. he not a member of the government so that’s out though the same couldn’t necessarily be said about the protested. finally he has not yet committed an act of violence so thats out
refuted
If he brings a gun next time I won’t be terrorized one bit. Im actually interested to know what kind he might be bringing.
It would be if you can point out the terrorist in the picture.
the guy holding the sign.
Is simply expressing his right to peacefully assemble. And announcing that he is willing to revolt. That isn’t a terrorist.
It’s proof because his beard obviously isn’t a muslin beard.
Do what I want, or I will give you a paper cut! With my SIGN! Then I’ll…rub lemon juice in it! MuahHaHaHa!
You smarmy wastrel! That really smarts…
Next time he will draw a picture of a gun instead of just the word, then he’ll show you all!!
Nice double-entendre
“show” with a picture – very clever!
(sincerely – no sarcasm)
“I’ll get you all! Pew pew pew!!!”
He’s LYING!!!! The man clearly has arms, as evidenced by those hands of his holding the sign!!!
*points at sign holder* YOU LIE! LIAR!
I don’t think they’re BARE arms, though. That looks like a long-sleeved shirt.
And they’re not furry enough to be BEAR arms.
Makes you wonder if people using prosthetics should be offended?
He’s obviously a dangerous member of the NRA come to threaten us with signs and posters hinting at the fact he COULD have brought a gun, but chose not to! The sign itself isn’t a joke in any way or form, no sir no how! /sarcasm
No, you STFU.. it was clear by the /sarcasm at the end of the comment that that is exactly what it was.
You are a twit for failing at spotting the obvious.
There are other reasons too……
Yawn….So I guess everyone protesting Bush and the war in Iraq are terrorists as well? Or does it only apply to citizens who protest against the current administration? I am making this statement on the assumption that this is a teaparty protester. It also looks like it could be from the rally Hanity had in California a few weeks back about turning on the water for the farming community despite the damage it might do to the minnow the government is so worried about.
No, everyone who brings guns to a protest to prove a point that doesn’t need to be proven is acting ‘like’ a terrorist. The fact that he’s using “this time” as a tactic to ‘fear’ people into thinking to his like, is called a terror tactic. Whether you agree with him or not, there we’re NO guns at ani-Bush rallies. Is it his right? Of course it is. Is it appropirate? Absolutely not.
This is statistically unlikely.
In fact, I know it not to be true.
(I have crazy friends. It wasn’t loaded or intended for use or to threaten anyone, but it was there)
Well this particular picture implies that the guy will bring it next time. If this were a peaceful sign, he would have brought it now because nothing would be different. This sign, implies that ‘I’ll bring my gun next time, and it’s gonna be bad for you.’ THAT is terrorism.
No… it implies that the signholder is making a statement… bringing AND USING the gun MIGHT constitute terrorism, or it might just constitute a criminal act such as murder or aggravated assault…
Arg!!! He is threatening to use excessive force if he doesnt get what he wants. The threat of excessive force is a fear / terror based tactic. QED this is terrorism. Terrorism can be enacted through threats of force as much as through force itself, and is defined by the fear/terror reaction it induces in an attempt to achieve a certain goal, hence the name.
No, terrorism is the systematic use *of terror*. He’s not really threatening violence, or suggesting membership in a group that does; he’s not specifically targeting noncombatants. QED, obviously not terrorism.
By your definition, meatheads walking down the street in muscle shirts are terrorist, because they’re obviously threatening to bash your face in. (And we don’t have a prison camp large enough to hold all of New Jersey.)
We could just put a fence around New Jersey! It’ll be just like that “Escape From New York” movie!
(disclaimer: Yes, I know there are perfectly nice parts of New Jersey.)
They’re like quarks, neutrinos, or Lions fans — I know they exist, but I’ve never seen one.
Lol…I know a Lions fan, too. We give him a fair amount of hell for that.
I know a Lions fan too…but I live in St. Louis so I can’t really talk. (See the sports LOL page for why LMAO)
You know, Rando, the Rams only started getting made fun of when they left L.A.?
rando… the browns hadn’t scored an offensive td in 10 months until they accidentally scored a few weeks ago. and now we’re back to mangini trying to figure out which of our 2 crappy qb’s he’s going to play. quinn or anderson… it doesn’t matter. one will get sacked and have bad rushing plays. the other will throw a ton of interceptions. doesn’t matter.
and i’m going to 2 games this year. phenomenal waste of cash… especially considering i’m going out of town (car, hotel, tickets, jerseys) for one of them. ugh.
more than anything, i think it comes to how far you’re willing to stretch the definition of terrorist, but also it could be considered the perspective of the people involved – if one intends an act simply to be a punk and make a statement that’s one thing but if one threatens physical violence it’s another, then again, if that same guy just looks like he’s gonna kick ass but he’s really just a giant teddy bear, a timid person nearby might not know the difference and assume he’s threatening physical violence, therefore he could be perceived as a terrorist when, in fact, he’s not.
so… how’s THAT for a run on sentence, huh?
Given that we’re talking about an unarmed guy at a protest rally, we’ve already stretched it pretty far. (Similarly, I wouldn’t think the “Death to all Juice” guy was a terrorist. Begging for a Jew boot in the nuts, yes. Terrorist, no.)
yep, i concur – terrorist wouldn’t be the first thing that comes to mind with this guy, but then it could be that wondefully disarming smile of his.
**starry eyes**
if he came back with a gun and started shooting people, or even was secretly coming up with plans to do so… then yah, i would maybe go with terrorist, but not ’til then.
“Begging for a Jew boot to the nuts…”
I’m still giggling.
I’m selling a LOT of screen protectors from that one today.
The bad part is that I heard it in Cartman’s voice….remember when he was demanding Stan’s “Jew Gold”? heheheheheheheheeeee……..
Kyle’s*
Yesterday, I was arguing with Dhoti. Today I’m agreeing with everything he’s saying. Did I slip into bizarro world? Hell, if anything, I would be very concerned with labeling this guy a terrorist for the very basic reason of violating his first amendment rights. This is not an actual threat against anyone. I’ve seen LOLs on this pic where people thought he was referring to the past, specifically the Civil War. And whether or not I like what he has to say, I don’t want to impede his right to say it. That’s dangerous. I’m sure I won’t like what this guy is up to, but it’s his right to do it totally (as long as he really doesn’t intend to come next time to shoot the place up LOL).
Your inability to use logic, THAT is terrorism.
Only to the Vulcans, the rest of us can just shake our head and walk away.
What about those in wheelchairs? They can’t walk. How insensitive!!
Honey, given the number of women who quietly and legally carry in their purse? Very, very unlikely! I know plenty of them….
*This might be a regional thing….I don’t know.
*does not mess with Diss and their friends*
Here, have a cookie.
*covers anti-flamewar gear with bulletproof vest*
Mmmm….thank you!
Not actually carrying at the moment, Lefty, but I could, legally, if I chose to; I went ahead and got my carry permit when I did the firearms training for my armed security license. If I knew I’d get free cookies, though….
You’re welcome.
So. . . when we get unwanted trolls, I mean. . . you could technically. . .
*makes Rambo-esque gestures, followed by flailing, non-regular troll death gestures*
. . . Interesting. I shall have to look into this.
when i buy my house i’m not installing a security system. i’m BUYING one. it consists of a rottweiler and a shotgun.
can i have a cookie too?
Yes. *gives, as well as a few doggie treats for the future rottweiler*
{http://www.rottweilercentral.com/rottweilerpuppiesforsale.html}
aren’t they just freaking cute too?!
Toooo cute! I just want to tickle those little puppy tummies! *likes puppies*
i know. i’ve been told no rottie puppy can come home until i’ve got my own place. so i stalk the breeder and watch the litters and drool over all the adorable puppies and try to pick which one i’d bring home if i were allowed.
I had friends who used to have rottweilers. Sweet dogs…probably in part because VERY well trained. They have a daughter now, who probably negates a new dog–poor thing ended up in the ER after petting a black lab.
Our family rott was to this day my favorite family dog. She was sweet and at a 120 lbs. But the only time she was dangerous was when she wanted to be “total lap goggy”
Rottweiler stepping on your crotch is bad…
VG – there’s a big difference between rotts and labs. labs are notoriously stupid… which makes them dangerous. everyone seems to love them because of their stupidity but for a security dog or a dog to have around children it’s a BAD idea. rotts aren’t nearly as smart as some other breeds (border collie comes to mind) but they’re significatly smarter than labs.
max – i know so many people that are scared of rotts because of the TV shows that show them as junkyard dogs and such, but i find that they’re the biggest babies… until they have to protect their family and/or home.
THANK YOU, Shortright! I freaking HATE labs. Hubby wants a chocolate one, and I guess I’ll eventually own a chocolate one because of that, but I’d much rather have a doberman, rott, or great dane. Of course, if we can find the German Rott/Bull Mastiff cross that we both want, maybe I won’t be cursed with a dog so stupid that it will end up in another town because the car it was barking at had a driver sadistic enough to taunt the dog by driving slowly and allowing the dog to follow along, “scaring” it.
my best friend has a lab and about once a month he has to call the police station and have them look for a “lost yellow lab”. this stupid dog is 10 years old and still gets lost when he’s only a few houses away from his own house. whereas my border collie once ran about 5 miles away from home (people called us saying they had her chilling in their backyard). while we were driving there to get her, she found her way home and was sitting on the backporch when we came home.
i’ve always liked the look of rotts, but their intelligence and the way they identify very closely with their family is why i really want them. i have a friend who has a rott/great dane mix and gus (the dog) is the biggest sweetheart to everyone, until he’s on guard. and then he’s scary as crap because he’s about 150lbs and TALL but looks exactly like a rott.
Two of our dogs are lab mixes; one was apparently mixed with something that had a brain, because if there was a lab gifted program, she’d be in it. Belle’s actually smarter than our non-lab dogs (mostly varieties of terrier mixes). The other one….well, she’s sweet. She has the intelligence of a soap dish, but she’s sweet. Closest she’s ever come to hurting anyone is when she steps on your foot by accident.
She has the intelligence of a soap dish, but she’s sweet.
is she cute too? the dumb ones are almost always cute… it’s their redeeming value i think. also, i don’t DISLIKE labs, i just prefer a smarter dog where you can predict a bit better what they will do and why.
My two dogs are stupid as rocks (One’s a lab, the other half-Golden half-Sharpei sp?) but I love them to pieces. I don’t know what I would even do with a smart dog.
isildo (i always want to type isildor… but i’m a LOTR dork) – it takes some getting used to a smart dog. my border collie still finds new and interesting ways to get in trouble. we’ve had her 5 years. the main thing is to keep them motivated and give them lots of things to do. with her, we play ball for a few hours a day and also do lots of tricks with her on a daily basis. we’ve talked about getting her into some herding classes and that sort of thing just to keep her working… but haven’t done it.
it is fun watching her next to our husky/shepherd mix (who isn’t dumb, but compared to the BC is seriously lacking) when they’re both presented the same problem. the border will figure it out so quickly then the husky/shep will just follow.
while she does cause problems by being too smart for her own good, she’s remarkably well tempered and is a complete and total lover. she will cry all night long if she can’t cuddle up next to you and sleep.
My cousins had a series of black labs, smart sweet dogs. Then they got a chocolate lab. The conclusion was: “sweet, but dumb as a rock”.
Great danes rock! I know, I know, you are so NOT surprised at my opinion!
*gives shortright a cookie*
Shotguns are the best firearm for home protection. Just the sound of a shotgun being racked will deter a lot of people, and if you do end up having to shoot them, you don’t have to be terribly specific about aim.
i figure, middle of the night the dog starts barking, grab the gun from under the bed (or where ever) and standing at the top of the stairs either the noise will get them or i’ll have some plaster work to do in the morning…
Sounds like a plan!
That’s my security system. Except you have to learn the difference between the ‘a leaf is falling oh no!’ bark and the ‘holy shiznic someone is coming to kill us in our beds!’ bark.
i’ve had dogs my whole life… there’s a pretty basic difference in the barks. not to mention barking at someone in the house is usually followed by yells from the person being barked/bitten at.
Get a good pistol, and use rat shot instead. The length of a shot gun barrel can slow down your aim, and can cause you to miss. It is also harder to carry a long barrel in close quarters. The noise rat shot makes is like a shotgun, and in the space of a home, just as deadly.
Disagree.
A pistol is a great tool when used by someone who is trained in its use and practices its use. It is much, much easier to miss someone with a pistol, when you’re half asleep and full of adrenaline, having to defend your home at a second’s notice. It’s even easier to miss if you never develop the muscle memory necessary for point shooting – because you will not have time to carefully take aim at an intruder in most scenarios.
A shotgun is a much better choice for home defense because it is simple in its operation and you have a much smaller chance of missing completely – a good load of shot and a home defense barrel without a constricting choke will give you a nice pattern. Smaller barrels for home defense, as opposed to long hunting barrels, are not that unwieldy in close quarters at all, either.
I made a comment about this somewhere around here. So read that please
A good .357 revolver with 6 rat shot in it will be easier to use over ANY shotgun. Keep in mind you get the same (roughly) shot pattern too. Anything in a 20 degree arch within 15 feet is in a lot of pain. And a revolver is easier to chamber the next round.
I have a nice antique Savage 220a (Navy training shotgun) that is decent in close quarters. But even it could get snared, or grabbed by a bad guy around a corner.
*is creeped out by all the shooty shooty talk*
*slinks away quickly*
it’s ok rando. i don’t own any right now. i have a problematic neighbor (lives a driveway’s width away and we’ve had 2 restraining orders against her) and decided if i had a gun in the house i’d just get myself in trouble with her…
whoops, didn’t close the tag.
Rando doesn’t like guns.
I shot one once. But that’s it. .22 rifle with my uncle. Used some old, round metal disc as a target. I got a lucky shot and hit almost dead center. My uncle seemed very impressed. I’m sure I couldn’t do it again.
I don’t like guns.
TOS, 6-8 Rat shot from an automatic will put some fear in the ears. And a few other things too. But you are most certainly correct about the sound of chambering a round in a pump shotgun. Or even that “tink” you get closing a single shot.
Rando, any time you want to shoot skeet/trap, come on over. It’s a blast.
No thanks. That’s what I have violent video games for.
Video games DO NOT match the smell, the feel, the sore shoulders. There is a satisfaction that you get when the clay targets asplodes. And it’s not something just anyone can do. It takes skill, and lots of practice.
I think you’re totally missing my point. Probably on purpose.
I once told someone when I buy a shotgun I’m going to get one that’s like a 10″ barrel. They told me that was illegal. I said “I’m not going to buy it that way, but I sure don’t need a 14″ barrel hitting door frames when I”m protecting my family.”
A. I myself have a Concealed Weapons Permit. I use my gun as protection, not as fear.
B. Women, also carry guns as protection, there is nothing wrong with that.
C. Terrorism – systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. The man is trying to use his treat of bringing a gun ‘next time’ to terrorize people into accepting his view. Plain and simple. Aruge the sign, not the act. We arrest people for “pre-meditated” things all the time.
threat*
“C. Terrorism – systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.”
so a coercive statement like, “If we don’t pass this stimulus bill right now, the recession may prove to be irreversible, that america may not recover from our inaction right now” would be considered terrorism. The president was clearly using the treat of the US economy being wiped out to terrorize people into accepting his view. Plain and simple.
Seems they haven’t read the opening statement of the Constitution. Or understood that the 2nd amendment didn’t apply to just the military.
no, it applied to the states.
Beg to differ with you there.
differ, but last I checked a comma isn’t a period.
And you are applying the word state as in Oklahoma when it was in the context of a nation state. As in the state of the United States of America.
I’m not applying anything, I’m just reading the literal version of the amendment. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I could be wrong, but I read this as the several states protecting themselves against the national government calling up a state’s militia and sending them off after having replaced them with a standing army.
But, couldn’t State also be referring to the Union (i.e. Secretary of State)?
Nope.
Well McCain also said that he’d pass the stimulus bill as well, so who’s the better choice? I saw agreement on that subject from BOTH candidates…
A threat is a threat, terrorist or not. Threats have no place in a peaceful protest.
Then after years of watching politics I’ve decided that there is no such thing as a peaceful protest.
See when I read this it seems like he’s making fun of the media that make a big deal out of people using their 2nd Amendment right to carry a gun at protests.
I don’t understand how “civil disobedience” is acceptable, yet speaking of carrying a gun (not using it but carrying it) is “terroism”. People you really need to get a catch up to reality.
HEY! You’re back!
No I’m I Like PEanut Butter and you’r Eddie!!!! However I have returned. **Puffs out chest** Let’s dole out some common sense ( I learned to type this time, possibly).
ILPB, welcome back!
Yeah, welcome back!
Oh, funny guy..
Common sense? I’d love to, but I have taken a vow to be as uncommon as possible. But we can only try to come to a rational conclusion, ok?
Peanut Butter Jelly TIME, Peanut Butter Jelly TIME.
Was I even a regular last time you were here?
I think you were part of the fringe working towards being a regular.
He’s talking about his weapons in a threatening manner. According to your logic, it would be fine for me to go into a convenience store and say, “Hi, I didn’t come in here with a pistol and kill you and take your money. TODAY.” Don’t try to validate this person’s outrageous behaviour, he’s a total prick.
Why do you assume that, if someone you disagree with has a gun, it’s going to be pointed at you? Sorry, but you’re just not that special.
I don’t trust people enough to think they will tolerate any ideas beyond their own. Is that so wrong?
It’s elitist, egocentric, and fairly naive, but other than that, I can’t complain.
Of course, I don’t embody your values so obviously I embody everything you hate. Be careful about what you say, you’re beginning to look an awful lot like a troll to me. Look, I’ve had plenty of experiences that tell me that people are not trustworthy or tolerant. Just because my views are different from yours doesn’t make me wrong!
I don’t have to put words in your mouth; you’re proving me right on your own. But aren’t you doing the exact same thing to me? I never said anything about absolutism, or about your values — *you* did.
I’m adding “hypocritical” to my list. And to think, you instantly hate me merely because I *disagree* with you? Sad, really.
You made assumptions that I was “…elitist, egocentric, and fairly naive…” all from a single statement. And while I am somewhat egocentric (that goes with being paranoid and untrusting), the other two accusations are completely out of line. I don’t care how you interpret my words, you can’t get all of that out of one statement without jumping to conclusions. Absolutism is all about jumping to conclusions, it’s the “you’re either with me or against me” approach I’m referring to when you made that statement. Just because I’m saying I’m different from you doesn’t mean I’m attacking you in any way. I NEVER said you were wrong for trusting people.
That’s true you didn’t say he was wrong for disagreeing with you, but you did say that they man must be evil for not agreeing with you. Dhoti may be generalizing your statement to himself as well, but I don’t think he is necessarily off the mark. You assume the man must be evil because he seems to lean conservative. (In my personal experience that sign could be held by either the left or right though so I don’t think it’s fair to assume.
“you can’t get all of that out of one statement”
Sure I can. But just because my views are different than yours, that makes me wrong? I thought you were against that…or just when it’s not you?
Like I said, kid, you’re just not that special. Sorry.
How can you analyze who I am from a single sentence? I’m really good at analyzing people and even I can’t do that! I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, believe what you want I really don’t care. What I have a problem with is you making wild accusations towards me! You insulted me first, don’t think I’m the aggressor here.
It’s funny — I’ll bet you don’t even consciously realize what you’re doing, do you? Specifically, how anyone who disagrees with you is somehow making “wild accusations”, allowing you to keep up the fiction that you’re an open-minded, rational person. (And of course there’s a healthy dose of egocentrism thrown in — no one could *possibly* disagree with your complicated and deep viewpoints in such a short amount of time. Whine on, emo kid, whine on.)
You’ve made it quite obvious that you’re incredibly uninformed. You seem to have no inclination to learn before opening your fat mouth. Turn off the PC and pick up a book.
No1, don’t feed the trolls.
no1 – the biggest difference between what he’s doing an what you’re example is is this:
in his, the threat in not explicitly stated, the only threat garnered from it is the one the viewer puts on it since we really don’t know what his intentions are. he could bring it, he couldn’t bring it.
in your example, you’re explicitly saying you’re going to come back and commit a crime. argued a way you could claim that because you were so specific with your intended actions you’re actually guiltly of conspiracy to commit a crime (whatever the legal term is).
not to mention he was at a rally, which given the size and the fact it wasn’t broken up means it was allowed under the lay with whatever permits or what not they needed to get, which also means there’s cops and security personnel on hand.
overall, totally different examples.
No, I think it’s a testosterone thing.
If a gun is not loaded, there is no purpose in carrying it. You don’t wave an unloaded gun around just to impress people. A gun is a specific tool meant for applying force, it would be like carrying a water bottle with no water in it. If you can’t use one properly, don’t carry it. (Not aiming this at Lefty directly, but the friends)
How can you tell if a gun is loaded or not just by looking at it? You can’t, pointing an empty gun at someone provokes the same fear response as doing so with a loaded weapon, therein lies the primary point.
Or maybe someone carrying an empty clip wants the ability to scare away an attacker without actually having to hurt them. Just because you’re scaring someone doesn’t mean you’re terrorizing them.
I don’t know, I think I would have to disagree with that. The idea of being scared or fearful for your life IS a form of terrorizing. For example, if you see a group of boys walking up and down your street all carrying guns (and for the sake of argument let’s say they aren’t loaded), isn’t the mere fact that they are out there terrorizing the neighborhood?
I didn’t want anyone to generalize. I just meant that it doesn’t HAVE to mean you’re terrorizing someone. I suppose I should have taken the time to get a good example. I mean at least in the definition of a terrorist. I don’t think a woman with an empty gun who pulls it out on a rapist is a terrorist. rambleramblerambleramble
I just meant that just because another person is scared doesn’t mean the person who scared them is a “terrorist.”
I’m guessing you’re using “boys” to imply that they’re more likely to use their guns. Consider the following two substitutes:
- A group of off-duty soldiers/cops walking up and down your street all carrying guns
- A group of young black males walking up and down your street *not* carrying guns
How does that change whether or not they’re terrorizing the neighborhood?
You’re being disingenuous. When you attempt to instill fear into someone, you ARE terrorizing them. Yes, it IS that simple. But go ahead, convolute everything and argue for this terrorist. It puts you in his league.
You’ve invented a backstory for this guy that lets you call him a terrorist and dismiss him. Apparently, you’re doing the same for me as well. Who’s being disingenuous here?
You are. I’m inventing nothing. That sign is an implicit threat. If someone said that out loud to another person, it would constitute an implied threat. Suck it, Dhoti. YOU are easy to dismiss.
So anyone you disagree with is a terrorist, then.
Glad we cleared that up, douche.
i dunno, cops or not, if they’re out of uniform and i don’t know who they are and they’re carrying guns down my street i get nervous.
the biggest thing about it is accidental anything – you got a gun you potentially have the capability, intentionally or not, to cause severe harm. that’s where the fear comes from, rational fear at that, i think.
simply talking about a gun, eh, not so much, depending on the context
Are you as rationally afraid when a car drives by?
depends on who’s behind the wheel, to be honest
Dhoti, seriously, stop putting words into peoples’ mouths. It’s ridiculous and the only thing it achieves is making you look like a fool.
If you can prove you understand what we’re talking about, then I might give your opinion some consideration.
Why bother? You’ll just take anything I say entirely out of context and then use it to insult me. Fine, I’m not omniscient like you obviously are, SORRY. Besides, whenever I defend my position it inevitably results in a huge wall of text, and no one likes those.
Is that a tacit admission that you are in fact underinformed? Progress!
Now, instead of crying about it, go READ something, form your OWN opinions, and learn to defend them.
And don’t come back until you can.
Presuming that when you say “off-duty…carrying guns” you mean “…visibly carrying guns” and when you say “black…not carrying guns” you mean “…visibly not armed”, then the cops are clearly the threat, if only because I can’t identify off-duty cops as cops!
If you meant something else, then your straw man is getting what it deserves because most people will be more concerned about the behaviour of the 2 groups than about the weapons they can’t see!
Make your own presumptions — that’s the point. (I’m just hoping that you’ll respond truthfully, not with just what sounds enlightened.)
All I’m trying to do is dig a little bit into Eddie’s phrasing of “boys”. (Which is itself, apparently, a straw man — or maybe not, because it’s one of those words that’s fun to use on the Internet, like “irony” or “Godwin”.)
Ok, I think we agree then; if one group in civvies is clearly armed and the other isn’t then the armed group more threatening irrespective of race.
If both are or aren’t then I’ll be more concerned about how they’re acting than their skin colour.
No, with respect, that’s a dumb statement, not to mention not legally sustainable. For a conservative, gun friendly person, you sure give away the main argument for self defense, I mean it’s hard to defend yourself after you’ve been shot by a seemingly “unloaded” gun.
Like I told Eddie it was a quick example. My point was that just because another human being is scared doesn’t mean the person scaring is a terrorist.
Saw that, and agree, just as I don’t think the guy in the pic is a terrorist, just a moron, but the threat in the political context may be considered a terrorist threat, especially under the previous administration’s rules, unless of course the sign holder agreed with them, then he’s a HERO.
Surely 5-0 was strapped with their gats, yo!!
Hey Sammy – it’s proof that the Obummer supporters are clueless – maybe when they’re living in a Nazi state they’ll figure it out. Fools!
And when you’re done living under a rock, you’ll learn how to nest a comment. One can only hope.
*Pulls chair up for Lefty* Have a seat, I think you’re in for a really long wait. Soda?
*pulls out ice cream and scoop from underneath chair* Got any root beer? Floats?
You guys have the best food in here, no wonder they call it Pundit “Kitchen”.
*roasts Sammy a s’more*
Ooooooooooh, root beer floats! I’ve got the root beer!
i’ll go with a straight up beer float. but you gotta use the right beer… like left hand brewery’s milk stout. that makes a HELL of a yummy beer float.
I’ve heard Guinness is good for beer floats.
i find that a sweeter stout works better. youngs double chocolate is pretty good too.
Huh.. hmmm.. sounds weird, but ok!
i have a good server at the local bar… she suggested it and i trusted her. it was a good decision. it’s really yummy. but you have to drink it pretty quickly before the ice cream melts down into the beer, that gets a little funky.
What about cherry coke? Can I have a cherry coke float? I’ll supply my own soda.
Win. Make one for me too.
Ummmm….your not helping…thanks for trying though
Shall we show Mary the door or do we forcibly push her over the balcony?
Threats of violence!! Terrorist!
Damn straight! Just wait and see what happens when she tries to step on my lawn..
You still got the mines, Eds?
Daisy cutters to be precise..
Depends who you ask… I would consider this guy a dick, but not a terrorist. At any rate, he’s undermining his own cause by making such a threat at a peaceful protest.
If in fact he is a protester at the California water thing, I don’t know for sure, he is protesting against the government for not turning on the water so he can keep his job and feed his family. Yup…sounds like a dick to me.
I live in California and I’ve heard nothing about this. Are you sure it’s real?
This may not be the most recent example, but it’s the first one that popped up in Google and I’m about to leave work for the day:
Hundreds Protest Cuts in Water in California
You don’t get out much do you? You don’t even know what a czar is. Do a search for California water crisis Hanity and you will find several articles with the two opposing view points. It is the typical two sided argument both of which have their points. Basically the federal water reserves for the farms are expected to be only 10% of what they normally are in a non drought environment which will make it a 30 year low for the amount of water they receive from that water source.
I’ve been really bust lately, so I’m not up to date on my political facts. I’d heard of the water shortages, but I’ve never heard about protests, that’s very strange. I’m more concerned about the education budget anyways, there’s been a strong push to privatize education around here, and that scares me more than any “water shortage.” California has been experiencing “drought conditions” since before I was even born, I don’t think this round of conservation efforts will be any different. In conclusion, I blame the governator for everything, even though I know it’s not politically correct. I don’t care if it doesn’t make sense, he replaced a “meh” governor and he himself has proven to be a terrible governor. I don’t like him at all, he deserves to be blamed for everything I can think of.
*snort* That actually made me laugh.
MUUUURRRRRDDDEEERRRRRRR!!1!!!1
@ Mary
Obummer?! Seriously?! Even Odumba was a better insult than Obummer; you need to try harder. Besides, is he a communist or a fascist? The two are polar opposites in case you didn’t know, so you wackos need to get together and decide which one you’re gonna accuse him of being.
P.S. Just so you know, the Nazis were fascists. I doubt you knew that considering your “brilliant” post up above, along with many similar posts of your ilk.
Nazis? Nazis? GOOOOOOODDDDWWWWIIIIINNNNNNN!!!1!11!eleventy!!1
I got to call someone out on a Goodwin violation today in my contemporary moral issues class. EPIC.
Gee, you mean reminding people of the US that there is a BILL OF RIGHTS, and poking fun at the LIBERAL “mainstream” media makes you a Terrorist?
There are so many quotes by such “Terrorist” like: Washington, Adams, Madison, Jefferson, et al about why they wanted the 2nd addmendment in the Bill of Rights that I would probably take up three pages of lolnews.
“No. Using fear of violence against civilians and fellow citizens to push one’s agenda makes someone a terrorist. ” — This is clearly a threat to the government, and not private citizens.
Then what does he need a gun ‘next time’ for? If it were a threat to the government system, he’d have brought his gun this time…read the mean, not what you want to see.
Oh brother… What do you think he’s going to do, go around shooting people because he is unhappy with the growing government? He is CLEARLY addressing the GOVERNMENT.
Good lord, man, don’t shoot at the postal workers, you’ll start a –
*ducks*
I hate to tell you this, but him and his buddies probably make up a majority of the people in this contry. Like I said above, fighting a tyranical government is preferable than living under it’s rule. But he is not threatening to go on a shooting rampage killing postal worker etc, that would be ridiculous. What if the government just stopped listening to the people? Should we all just sit down and shut up? He is frustrated, like many of us that no one is listening.
I guess they are ignoring all those references to the Revolutionary war. Don’t tread on me and such…..
I’m confused… how can a majority be frustrated that no one is listening?
Between the lines, that sounds more like the case of a small minority frustrated because:
1) They only listen to each other.
2) Only they listen to each other.
Its simple. You just appoint a bunch of czars and they do what you want while ignoring the majority. It’s much like the democrats pushing thru a 1000 page bill without reading it and voting not to let the people read it before they pass it and that the majority of the country does not want.
*run on sentance police…I fail*
If what Sammy meant was “The President and Congress aren’t listening,” as you’re making an argument for, that’s one thing. If what he meant was “The people who voted for the President and Congress aren’t listening,” that’s another. (Personally, I suspect that one’s closest to the mark.)
What he actually said was “No one is listening.”
Thanks, Semperfidd. You said what I was going to.
Gee. How could I have been so wrong in thinking it sounded like an angry minority who only listen to each other?
What is this “czar” thing I keep hearing about? I’m too busy to look it up lately, so can someone please explain?
You know, like Drug Czar? If I remember right, it was something Clinton started.
I’ve never heard of it until just recently.
Un-elected, un-vetted officials appointed by an administration to head up certain tasks, such as online security, AIDS, the economy, the “drug war”, and the like. Many presidents before the current one have had “czars”, but no one has taken them quite so seriously or appointed quite as many, IIRC. Also, the “un-vetted” part makes people nervous, especially when we get people like John Holdren, Van Jones, and others who either have serious conflicts of interest with the position they’re holding, or who end up with ethical and moral violations. Van Jones being a “truther”, for example.
I’ve got a list from Politico attached to my name with a partial list of czars from this administration. I have serious issue with the “un-vetted” part, and with the part about us not knowing what these guys are being paid to do this job.
Well, there’s executive powers for you. They do have a right to appoint advisers without need for anyone else’s approval, not that I like it. I feel the president has too much power in terms of the people they can surround themselves with, I think the legislative branch should need to approve them first. I know what this means now, but I’ve never heard of them referred to as “czars” before. At least they don’t have any political power, but it does make me a little nervous.
That’s the problem — they’re not advisers, they’re “minders”. State is a great example — Hillary, the Senate-confirmed appointee, is essentially neutered by a bunch of unconfirmed “regional czars” who report around the chain of command straight to the White House.
…that’s what advisers do. They collect and interpret data and relay it directly to the president. They have no political power, so calm down.
“No political power” is in the eye of the beholder. They tend to hold great sway over the decisions made by the president, so therefore their conflicts of interest and lack of vetting should be a serious problem.
{http://me.jeremybuff.com/blog/list-of-obama-czars/}
Here’s a list of Obama’s czars, along with salary (if known), previous experience, and who they report to. This is a circumnavigation of Congress and a normal chain of command, and is possibly unConstitutional.
Go back and read what I said. Or have you moved on to the “you don’t agree with me 100% so I’m going to be petulant to you” portion of the discussion?
@ Dhoti
Not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying you’re jumping to conclusions and forgetting the definition of “advisor”, that’s all. Chill out.
And we’re saying — quite clearly, I might add — that “adviser” is not the correct definition in this case, because the czars are setting policy, not merely reporting it.
If you’re getting advice on how to stop murderers, I’m not sure that the “takes one to know one” approach is appropriate here. Especially considering that we don’t know much about these random buddies that are being appointed.
@ froofrou
Like I said, the situation does make me nervous. However, I feel the president is probably smart enough to make his own informed decisions. Unless all his advisers decide to collaborate to mislead him, I don’t think we’re in too big of trouble. Also, the president isn’t really bound by the constitution anymore because of “executive orders.” Ever since Lincoln suspended the constitution, the clause “…take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” in the constitution has been used to exempt the president from constitutional constraints whenever they feel like it. I find it disgusting that no president has been honest enough to get rid of this “loophole.”
@ Dhoti
These “Czars” cannot set policy, they do not have the authority. They can merely make suggestions to the president.
Cite that, please, No1.
I’ll cite when you cite. You’ve offered no evidence to support your outlandish claims. Why should I need to support my relatively rational ones?
THe “informed decisions” part is what scares me, No1. We’ve got a tax cheat running the Treasury, someone with squinky views on eugenics making policy concerning Scientific and environmental issues, Van Jones, who is a self-professed Communist with radical ties and seriously messed up views on the world, Alan Bersin, the “border czar” who doesn’t believe that illegal immigration is a problem……..
and on and on and on.
These people are (as Dhoti pointed out) not just advisors. They make the policy that directs the current and incoming administrations on how to handle issues dealing with their particular areas of “expertise” (used loosely).
This should be more than a minor annoyance. There should be hell raised about it!
At least things aren’t gonna be boring!
Quelle surprise — I really should have expected a response like that, shouldn’t I? *sigh*
See the link in my name for a summary of Obama’s first “car czar”. The guy was put in place specifically to manage GM and Chrysler, not merely to report on their progress to the White House.
But wait a minute — didn’t you just admit a few posts ago that you’d never heard of a czar before? Why, then, should I believe that you suddenly know what you’re talking about?
Let’s see… GWB created the Abstinence Czar and the czars of Bank Bailouts/TARP, Budget, Cleanup (Nuclear), AIDS, Bioethics, Bird Flu, Birth Control, Communications, Cyber Security, “Democracy”(?), Domestic Policy (aka Karl Rove)… And that’s just A-D.
Czar is NOT a job description. Most of the so-called czars are technically “Special Advisor” or “Special Envoy” or “Coordinator” or “Director” or “Assistant Secretary”. You don’t get to vet everybody who works for the Department of State or the EPA.
Yes, by all means. Let’s get rid of all those pesky advisors.
“Abstinence czar”? Really? What the heck did that entail, sitting around trying to figure out how to make sex sound like less fun?
Abstinence and birth control? Redundancy at it’s finest!
You’re missing the point, unless you can find a new Bush czar with responsibilities of similar scope to a new Obama czar.
(Also, for the record, “Bush” is not a valid response to a question.)
At this point Obama holds the record for appointment of czars. His number stands at 35, from what I’ve read.
“Czar” is one of those terms that gets bandied about. Check out the list of czars and their jobs here: {http://me.jeremybuff.com/blog/list-of-obama-czars/}
“(Also, for the record, “Bush” is not a valid response to a question.)”
Sure it is! What the last name of the president before Obama and before Clinton?
Damn… watta ya know… I was wrong. I feel like a dumb person now.
I’m sorry.
Kinda like Ronald Reagan’s Drug czar — the “FIRST!”
Ghood Ghod, do I hope you’re kidding. Nixon created the position of Chief of the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Then it became the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement. Then it became the National Institute on Drug Abuse. And that’s just during Nixon’s term. That’s why the term Drug Czar became the nickname since 1982.
Aaand that should show us how effective the “czars” are.
Eh, don’t you know? If people are ignoring the laws you’ve already passed, the most effective solution is to pass more laws!
*taps pencil on desk*
Dagnabbit….are we going to have to form a committee?
Diss, we do not have time to discuss this in a COMMITTEE!!
But…they’re ignoring the laws! We need at least a committee. We might need an….advisory board. Or even a study.
Reg, for God’s sake, it’s perfectly simple. All you’ve got to do is to go out of that door now, and try to stop the Romans’ nailing him up! It’s happening, Reg! Something’s actually happening, Reg! Can’t you understand?!
I’m responding to Froo because it had to be done:
Diss is NOT a committee!
Max, the voices in my head are highly offended and would like me to inform you that we most certainly ARE a committee.
That no one in the govt is listening, and that the media is failing to do it’s job.
I’m not on the left’s side at all, but the media’s real job is to make money. They can say it’s to report news, but they’re as capitalistic as any other business. They’ll report what sells. And, they are doing that very well.
I agree with you on the money thing, however I don’t agree that they are doing it well. If they did it well then the newspapers wouldnt be failing so bad nor would MSN etc.
Sorry, I retract that part of my statement.
In the meantime, supposed right wing nutjobs and the stations that play them, including FOX news, are raking in the dough reporting the other side while these mainstream guys struggle for ratings…
So, your problem is that Fox is reporting the other side, and that’s what people want to hear because they’re tired of the lies and leftist spin on everything? The thing is, we’re a capitalistic country, and they’re failing because we’re not buying what they’re selling anymore.
Then my question is, why don’t they change what they are selling? If they wanted to continue you’d think they would change.
Because they’re too stupid to realize less and less people want to hear their crap. You can try to debate that, but then you’re just arguing with your own statements. It’s one of the reasons the left wants the Fairness Doctrine so badly. A diminishing group of people want to listen to the left’s garbage, so they write legislation making stations put out both sides. Why not let the radios decide what’s best for them? They are there to make a profit. It would be the same as telling newspapers and magazines that they have to report for both sides of the spectrum equally. It’s bad policy and it’s not good for the business.
Fox News does so well because they are the most prominent right wing biased news network, making it very easy for righties to tune in to news that suits their needs. How many right wingers actually prefer CNN, MSNBC, or the networks for news, honestly? Most righties I hear from think they are all skewed to the left, leaving only one primary choice for their idea of “balanced” news. Essentially, they do so well because they have almost a monopoly on the right wing news.
People love sensationalism. Why do you think so many movies are works of fiction? Seriously, just stay away from FOX, and all news networks for that matter.
That is a good point Rando. I definitely have to give that one to you.
And, I really don’t go to FOX for news. I do listen to Glenn Beck on the radio in the morning, but he usually cites where he gets his facts. That, and I find him funny. However, before I start quoting him, I do research on my own. I know he doesn’t cover everything going on in the world, and I should branch out a bit, but I just haven’t found another place that can hold my attention that will back up their facts.
And, before you start flaming that Glenn is part of FOX, I know that. What I’m getting at is that I don’t go to FOX’s website nor do I watch it at home. And, if you can offer a radio broadcast that is more than just name calling and pompous attitudes, I’ll give it a shot.
I don’t watch the news anymore except the local news (which sucks, but I digress). I’ve gotten so annoyed by all the talk about bias on all the networks that frankly, I don’t feel like I can trust any of it anymore. IRL, I’m not nearly as interested in the news as I am here. To be honest, I’ve got enough crap going on in my life where what’s happening in Washington or Afghanistan or Iraq or California or whatever really has little meaning for me. And I think we can all agree that the news networks live for the ratings, not for the journalism. Which is sad, and one reason I didn’t pursue a journalism career despite being a pretty damn good writer and reporter in high school and college.
I tend to not watch the news down here either, IMO it’s just as biased. However, I will say that one station, ABC, tends to more about just reporting and not editorializing. My only small complaint is at the end of the news they like to show recap footage of news of the day. This usually involves some sort of disaster such as the tsunami, earthquake damage, plane crashes, etc.
We should have talks with them and hug it out…duh
*hugs Semperfidd*
Thanks bud.
No, they do not make up a majority of the people. A long way from it. Think of the demographics of the U.S. Urban citizens and people who have some sort of education (as well as self-educated people like me) understand that there are places where the government must be involved.
If the gundamentalists represented the majority of U.S. citizens then there would have been a bare minimum of 500,000 citizens at the teabagging “protests”, not 30,000. And most of them were imported on busus from Virginia and Pennsvlvania.
There were a million people in the mall during the inauguration.
LOL! “gundamentalists” I like that one! I’m gonna start using it myself! +30!
In retrospect, this may have been a spelling error on shikzoid’s part, but I still like it.
it does describe that specific segment of wingnut very succinctly doesn’t it, and it rolls off the tongue nicely too. i award another couple dozen internets for its creation ;>
You’re going to have to cite your figures on the tea parties, dude. Because I believe you’re extremely wrong.
Well, and a lot of the people who agreed with them on some issues and might have participated actually have jobs, too.
I dare say the private citizens who get murdered to “prove” some idiot’s point would be interested parties, and not just “the government.”
Once again, no one is threatening private citizens, that would be insane. He is threatening the government and if it ever came down to it, fighting a tyrancial government would be preferable than living under it’s rule.
I agree wholeheartedly.
You can shoot the government as long as you aren’t shooting any people at the same time.
Wow. How can someone with a wit this deft be a sometime troll? :-/
How convenient for the government… Guess we have to do everything they say now.
Well, not necessarily. I don’t think armed rebellion is the best way to go about being heard though… Whatever happened to “If you don’t agree with the president you’re a traitor!”? The republicans loved that card when Bush was in office, how easily we all forget…
It’s being said now, except “racist traitor” is the phrasing these days.
Very true, I hadn’t thought of that. I live in an area populated by rabid conservatives, so I don’t hear much of that. Good to see that both parties are still neck and neck in terms of total stupidity.
Really? Could you point to any examples? So far I’ve only heard people saying that they’re being accused of it.
A quick Google search gives me this link:
{http://www.topix.com/forum/us/TGR4LQ9RPR6MKUBCR/p17}
Comment section of a blog, I believe. Look at the third comment.
Sorry, I should have been more specific – I meant prominent examples, not a random Internet comment. Stuff along the lines of Attorney General Ashcroft, Senator Cornyn, House Republican leader Boehner, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, many of the Fox News anchors, et al.
Considering that I didn’t qualify my original statement in that way, I don’t feel it necessary to cite anything along those lines. I simply said the phrase is being used, I said nothing about who is using it. Also, neither did No1, other than to say that Republicans are using it. I’d be willing to wager a LOT of money that the person in my cite isn’t a Republican in any way, shape, form, or fashion.
But just so you know, Jimmy Carter called people who disagree racist, and Nancy Pelosi was the first to play the Nazi card.
Froo, I was just thinking, “Prominent? You mean like Carter?”
Nice generalization. How about…all democrats play the race card.
““If you don’t agree with the president you’re a traitor!” Is a load of chit and you know it. The only people that were saying that were Hillary and other left wing asses. Please cite for me anywhere where this was said by someone representing the Republican party. Most of the Republicans I know did not agree with Bush all of the time. Most of us think he spent way too much money.
See above.
See above for your cite? The only thing I saw was Froo citing Carter for the racist thing.
It must be nice to never see anything you don’t want to.
I don’t see a cite either.
“See above for your cite? The only thing I saw was Froo citing Carter for the racist thing.”
“It must be nice to never see anything you don’t want to.”
Communication is based on agreed-upon definitions for terms. He defined your post which refers to Carter calling someone “racist” as a cite. By the definition he established (which is what I was responding to) – my post, immediately above the one he repeats from, has several cites which he is claiming he can’t see.
You may define the word differently, and you certainly have that right. But you’re making a point of contradicting my comment, which was in response to his definition – not yours.
If you want to exclude my bringing up prominence based on the fact that your previous discussion didn’t include it, fair enough. But it’s not very flattering for you to turn around and do the same thing you rejected when someone else did it.
You’re not citing anything, you’re simply calling out names. Am I then to form my own opinion of what those people might or might not have said? Considering the context, it appears as though the people you mentioned are calling others “racist traitors”.
If you’d like an actual news article where Jimmy Carter is calling people racist for disagreeing with Obama, I can gladly provide it. The statement in question, however (“racist traitors”) wasn’t being disputed as something said by anyone mainstream, publicly elected, or in any way associated with government. So therefore, I provided a cite (in the form of a URL) that backed up my original statement, and left it at that.
I still haven’t seen even that from you. If you’re going to throw names out there and change the course of the discussion, feel free. But back it up.
Go back and reread my post. You’re introducing a definition THAT HE WAS NOT USING.
And again, it ill-behooves you to do the exact same thing you snarked at me for. Some might call that a double standard.
If I had been talking to you, I would have provided:
Ashcroft
Cornyn
Boehner
Rumsfeld
And I would have noted that I was referring to casual insinuations of treason, which was what was originally said. You changed it to “racist traitor”; I’m not obligated to follow your lead.
“If you don’t agree with the president you’re a traitor!” isn’t a casual insinuation of treason.
Also, what I did is an accepted form of argument, which is to take what someone has said and compare and contrast it to another side.
That would have an ounce of validity IF you had been obviously doing it to make a point that I shouldn’t have introduced the element of prominence, rather than implying that any old nutjob speaks for their entire party. You weren’t; you simply contradicted what I had said on the pretense I was responding to your definition rather than his.
Sorry, you got the wrong party, rewind about 5-6 years and reread your post.
As Hillary once said, “I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
Ahhh…right party. I am now excersing my right to debate and disagree with the current administration.
…
You know, non sequitur might be a better choice to base your name on than semper fidelis.
Just because you took an intro to philosophy class doesn’t mean semperfidd is wrong.
Nah, he’s not worng, just temporally challenged.
Course that could also mean wrong *walks away kicking a can*
Latin classes, actually, but you’re right. My taking them don’t make him wrong, nor do they make his statements non sequitur.
Their unrelatedness to what he was previously saying are what do that.
with respect, once again, go back 5-6 years and reread your post.
You mean when they were playing the race card, inferring that all white wanted to drag blacks with pickup trucks? Or at least Bible Belt Republicans.
Nah, when the GOP was having police arrest people for wearing Anti- Pres Bush T-shirts, oh I forgot, you only like freedom of speech about gun threats.
Wrong, and you are assuming I am a Repub. I am not. You seem to forget Bush’s low approval ratings. Not every conservative agreed with everything he was doing. A lot of us were speaking out against the Patriot Act, even before it got signed (I was late on that one) and the No Child Left behind failure. But you are foolish if you think it’s just a Republican thing. Both parties have sold us up the river.
True, on that we can agree.
Actually, come to think of it, that is possible.
I.e. the French Taunter scene in Holy Grail, wherein they “attack the castle.”
LOL, I love that scene!
“Your mother was hamster and your father smelt of elderberrie!”
I use that insult weekly.
My favourite scene!
You mean like how I have the right to look up your home address, the right to travel between states, and the right to carry a high-powered rifle?
Yeah. You and James Kopp would be in agreement about how unfair it is to restrict the form of free speech known as “making thinly-veiled threats to commit murder.”
Telling someone their thought process is archaic and given to them by a news network doesn’t make you right. It just makes you sound like you watch left leaning news coverage too much.
Your post is so wrong that you don’t even have a clue how wrong that you are.
Oh ok, so owning/carrying a firearm makes you a terrorist? Hmmmmmm…
*Lines up behind Diss*
Me too… a liberal-gun-totin’-hippie-terrorist… Gitmo here we come!!
I hear the weather’s nice in Gitmo this time of year!
And I hear that Waterboarding Season just ended! I’ll bring the Coppertone!!!
But Jonas Brother music being pumped into bed chambers season JUST openned.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
No, owning/carrying a firearm and using it as a proponent of fear, does make you are ‘TERRORist’. If you say, ‘this time’, trying to scare people into not wanting you to bring one next time, then you are using fear to persuade people to your thinking. That, IS terrorism.
Are you afraid of his sign?
I’m afraid of what the sign means. Afraid of what the sign says beyond the letters.
That he would stand up for himself and not get run over and abused by the govt? That if necessary the people might revolt against the govt?
Revolt against a democratic government? You’re talking crazy, 300 million people revolting against a governmnet? A. No one even truthfully thinks like that unless you watch Fox “News”. No one is geting run over or abused LOL. We all live fantastic lives comapritively and you just want more and more. But more is never enough for some people.
Oh my God!!!11!! Another “You disagree with me so you must watch FOX. That’s what all the comedians say.” Person. Come on man just go one post without accusing someone of that.
You say this like it’s a bad thing. I suppose I should share my ‘more’ with people who have less?
Thank you. I have never purposefully had Fox news on in my life. In fact, I have only seen it on TV’s of business where I was delivering to. I did stop flipping channels one time, and got bored quickly.
I suppose you think all that garbage on CNN, MSNBC, HLN, ect…. is total truth. Like that woman getting kicked off her insurance for acne.
I’m not afraid of his sign – I have contempt for his sign (and him). He reminds me to the street dude with with “I’d rather beg than steal” sign that I wouldn’t give a penny to. I hate assholes that are just so freaking proud of their passive-aggressive extortion attempts.
My favorite street-bum sign that I’ve actually seen: “Why lie? I need the money for beer.”
Yes, I gave him a buck. Unfortunately, no, I didn’t get a picture.
Him I’d give the buck to, and have to other honest men.
My hubby likes to tell the story about his cousin (yeah yeah, friend of a friend of a dog I once knew) who needed money for prom. He and his buddy stood out on a corner in Houston with a giant sign that said “We’re not homeless, we don’t need jobs, but prom is this weekend and we’re flat broke!”
I think they made over $1000 in a few hours and had the money to get what they needed to go
No. As I said before, I think this picture is of a supporter at the Hanity rally regarding the water in Bakersfield California, if that is the case then the Terrorist would be the US government. I think it is an act of terror to the people by the government to withhold water that the produce industry desperately needs for jobs etc just to possibly save a minnow.
yup
He’s not a terrorist, he’s a patriot politely informing you that he is compromising, by leaving his firearms at home for this meeting. Now if both sides could compromise we could have something here…
Lunch?
A beer summit?
Another CPAC convention?
Squaredancing?
S’mores?
Bratwurst?
Pie?
Mince Meat, Apple, or Pumpkin?
Pumpkin! No, apple! No, wait, what?
*Minda forgot to take her ADD meds today, Whoops!*
Look, Mina! It’s something shiny!
*steals pie*
Oh! Where?
*looks around, looks back at desk*
I don’t see… Hey! Where’s my pie???
*Cries like a little girl*
Someone stole my pie.
*sighs*
Ok, you can have the pie back.
Yay! Thank you Diss!
Pfft. Diss is such a softie. *eats pie stolen from ILPB*
Yeah, the Founding Fathers weren’t Islamic. Good thing, too.
I kinda of like this comment. Yeah, maybe he IS a terrorist…
What’s wrong with Islam, pray tell?
You’re not a woman, are you?
You’re not a Christian, are you?
Why, yes I am…
Well, you know, literal intrepretation and all that.
No, I have no idea what you’re talking about…
What he’s saying is that the literal interpretation of any religious text leads to problems. Islam and Christianity have the same problems when interpreted literally.
Sorry, while the Bible has verses about the husband being the head, it also says that the wife should guide the house. Add in that a husband should treat his wife like his own flesh, and no man yet never hated his own flesh, but rather nourishes and cherishes it.
A lot of that comes from people misquoting the Bible. Like cleanliness is next to Godliness. Not in the Bible. Nor is the Husband head of the house.
I always hate when people forget those parts. If a man is not honoring his wife then he is in the wrong.
The bible says all kinds of lovely things!
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. — Deuteronomy 21:18-21
He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. — Exodus 21:15
He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. — Exodus 21:17
The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it. — Proverbs 30:17 (I think this one should get extra points for creativity)
Take a look at an Islamic country and how women are treated, then take a look at a Christian country. Enough said…
OK, the Vatican.
What are you talking about?
Well, a Christian country that doesn’t allow women to exercise any rights to, say birth control of any type.
The Vatican is not a country, it can’t make anyone do anything. Also, I would hardly compare not being able to use birth control with being subjec to honor killing if you are raped, or having your kids taken away from you because you don’t own your kids or anything else, or not being able to go outside without the company of a man.. I could go on and on. There is NO comparison.
Wrong, The Vatican is the world’s smallest country. Disclaimer I’m a geography teacher.
AAnd you are overgeneralizing regarding Muslim countries. Also, the Vatican does restrict women’s rights, but that’s ok it only restricts them a little.
There is NO comparison, NONE.
well, in your mind anyway.
Charlie, you are correct that the Vatican is a country. The difference? You can leave the Vatican of your own free will, not be a mercy killing because you don’t believe.
Carolinian, Just makin the point that the one Christian country in the world doesn’t treat women ewually. Not all muslim countries are totally theocratic and not all muslim countries do as m&m described.
course that could also mean equally. *wonders why his fingers are so fat tonight*
But you are implying that The Vatican is as bad as those countries. And as much as I differ with the catholic faith, you are stretching it more than just a bit.
JAC, I didn’t see that implication. What I did see was Charlie showing that a Christian country (i.e. The Vatican) has it’s issues as well in regards to women.
No, not what I said, she said look at a muslim country then a Christian country, and see how they treat women. Turkey si a muslim country and they don’t do any of that. There is only one Christian Country and it descriminates against women, not only in it’s own territory but anywhere it has influence, which is worldwide. Catholics are no worse thatn other Christian sects and better than a lot of them, but it doesn’t really matter.
as fun as this is, gotta go, cya on the dark side.
What sort of womens rights do they have in Turkey? Are they under Sharia law? You are saying that the women in Turkey have more freedoms than women that live in the Vatican? (Who would want to live there anyway?) Yea, the Vatican may “technically” be a country, but that’s a sneaky way to make your point. The US is a Christian country, with Christian founders, which is how this discussion started out. There is no country on the planet where women have more rights, well maybe some places in Europe but those are primarily Christian too.
There’s this thing, it’s called the internet, and if you type in certain “key words,” like, oh I dunno, “women’s rights in turkey” this thing, the internet, it comes up with all sorts of interesting information about the “key words” you typed in. You should try it!
Eminem, the USA is NOT a Christian Country — try actually reading the Constitution for a change.
Dude, don’t even go there, mmm. This is not a Christian country, no matter how much you want to make it one. I’m a Christian, and I’m glad about that.
To clarify, I’m glad about it not being a “Christian country.” I guess I’m glad to be a Christian too, but that’s irrelevant.
“What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.”
James Madison
Note: In case you didn’t know, he’s the guy who wrote the basic Constitution and who pushed through the Bill of Rights, oh and he happened to be a devout Christian.
Thank goodness somebody handled 3mmm with calm and intelligence. I was fuming, foaming, ranging and ranting all over the place. I would have not handled the complete ignorance so well.
The US IS country with primarily Christian populace and was founded by Christians. No, the government itself is not Christian but it was created with PROFOUND influence of the Christian religion AND it is the most tolerant of other religions and the most rights for women of any country in the world. What the EFF are you people so mad about? Be proud of your country and the fact that we have so many freedoms. I still don’t see ANY point being made except that you just HATE what I’m saying.
Oh, and I took your advice SB and used that “new-fangled” google thing the kids are always talking about, here’s what I found:
“The BBC’s Jonny Dymond, in Istanbul, says the Amnesty report paints an almost unimaginably bleak picture of women’s lives in Turkey.
Citing study after study it suggests that the level of violence against women here is considerably higher than around the world, he says.
It is says at least a third and possibly up to 50% have suffered violence.
“Violence against women by family members spans the spectrum from depriving women of economic necessities through verbal and psychological violence, to beatings, sexual violence and killings,” the reports says.
“Violence against women is widely tolerated and even endorsed by community leaders and at the highest levels of the government and judiciary.”
Examples include a man strangling his own daughter because she has been raped and a judge reducing a rapist’s sentence when he promises to marry his victim. ”
It’s a BBC article, take a look for yourself! Take special note where it talks about how this is tolerated by the government officials.
I’m not getting involved at this point, you can argue the merits of the Christian faiths with someone else. Besides, you already know my standpoint on religion.
Eminem, once again the USA is not a Christian Country. It may be a country comprised mostly of Christians, but that does not make it a Christian Nation. The USA does not “tolerate” other religions, they have the “unalienable right endowed by their creator” to worship as they see fit without the interference of the government or the majority citizens who believe in a different manner, say Christians. I refer you the quote above by one of those founders, maybe read some more about him and his thoughts on religion and government.
Oh, get over yourself, nobody HATEs what you’re saying, we simply disagree with you’re narrow Christo-centric Anti-Muslim outlook, but hey don’t sweat it, be secure in your myopia.
Apparently the “tolerance” of other religions that mmm speaks of doesn’t apply to him/herself considering his/her views of Islam.
CF – please go to a muslim country and try worshipping as a Christian in the open. Until then, EOT.
Eminem, I would except for one problem… I am not a Christian. My mom is, most of my eight siblings are (yeah, I know — irish catholics), but, nope, I gave it up for lent.
By the way, Eminem, since Islam is a little over 600 years younger than Christianity, if you truely want to compare the two with regards to women’s rights, go back 600 years and tell me how progressive Christians were concerning women’s rights.
Islam is a little different, but it doesn’t preach against women more so than any other religion. Sure, there are some extreme sects, but they hardly make up the majority of muslims. What we hear about Islam here in America is greatly exaggerated and negative because there has always been a little bit of hate for muslims here and 9/11 made it socially acceptable. Once again, people are entertained by sensationalism.
I never had to wear a burqua yet, so I say yea, I’m glad our founders were Christian and not Islamic. I can drive and go outside the house without a man with me. I don’t have to worry about being stoned to death if I should happen to get raped… Those kinds of things..
Those kind of things only happen in the news… where they are hunted for. You probably know about 4 or 5 muslims in your life, and they live just like you do, they only pray 5 times a day.
And I’m not looking to pick a fight here, I’m just pointing out the horror stories you hear usually come from a country where “religious leaders” are using their influence on the populace. It happened with Christians too… just look at the King James version of the bible.
It’s true that those things have happened within muslim nations, but it does not represent the majority.
Please cite any proof you have that the oppression does not happen in the majority of muslim nations. I believe that it is the majority and any tolerant mulsim nation is a rarity. I am not talking about muslim people, I am talking about muslim governments and sharia law.
Read the Qoran, that’s a pretty decent cite for ANY views into Islam. And I’m not talking about islamic governments, I’m talking about the muslim faith.
Just like it’s not fair to let Christian nutjobs define people’s views of Christianity and Christians in general, it’s not fair to judge the entire Muslim religion by the actions of the few. And you know what? A government controlled by the Christian religion is pretty fvcking ugly too. It’s not just governments that have ruined the Muslim faith.
ALL theocracies are screwed up. They’re hardly an example of a religion’s nature. Don’t look at the countries, their form is corrupt, look at the mainstream followers.
THAT sums up what I wanted to say above much better. Good call.
Yea, I may know a few, in this country, a Christian country were we are tolerant of other religions. Christians in Islamic coutries are routinely rounded up and killed for praying.
Well I must turn around your earlier response by asking for a cite.
Cause those are some really wild, WILD claims.
Well, here’s one:
“Amid the current unrest in Saudi Arabia in the wake of America’s war on Islamic terrorists, Middle East Newsline is reporting arrests and even torture of Christians in the “moderate” Saudi kingdom.
“Christian sources in the kingdom said at least 15 Christians from Africa have been arrested in Jedda over the last few months for conducting non-Islamic services in private homes. Three of them are said to have been tortured in prison,” said the defense news service.
It was the first confirmed report of physical torture of Christians detained for worship in the kingdom, according to the report.
“Saudi Arabia does not allow the worship of any other religion other than Islam. Jews are not allowed in the kingdom and Christians are warned that they risk arrest if they participate in private prayer gatherings,” said the report..”
Hasn’t it been in the news about Arabic Muslims killing African Muslims because they were not of the original faith? And more than one missionary has been found in pieces.
Max, do us a favor, carry a large trunk of Bibles into Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, or such countries. Then report back on how well you did.
That would be a fun experiement! lol. Hey, you changed your avatar! Or all the color just went out of it…
No, it’s from Get Fuzzy. It says, “Hey Buddy, don’t come a breathin if the box is a heavin.”
Here’s the irony : Saudi Arabia and the U.S. are best buds! Isn’t this world great?!
If he came unarmed what is he holding the sign with? hmm, must have talked to that runner from yesterday. Actually he OBVIOUSLY talked to that run..what is that he is wearing an American flag Members Only jacket?!?! First stripes and polkadots and now gaudy mid 80′s jackets emblazened with the ol’ red white and blue. jeez!!!
Success: Protesting and holding a sign with no arms! Whats yer ‘cuse?
We need more citizens like this guy, imo.
“Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.”
Ugh, how ignorant. We have a government because people are to petty, stupid, and selfish to govern themselves. And just because you put it in quotes, doesn’t make it intelligent…
It’s in quotes because it is a quote. John Basil Barnhill. (Often incorrectly attributed to Thomas Jefferson, probably because it sure sounds like something he would have said!).
Here’s another quote for you, and I’ve got a cookie for anyone who can come up with the correct attribution:
Giving money and power to Government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
Hmm, I can’t say I know who said that, but I have to dissagree. Giving money to teenage boys is much safer…
Giving money and power to Government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
Well, I’ll eliminate Ted Kennedy from contention. He would have grabbed the whiskey and car keys…
Bwwwahhhaaaaa
oh……………I see what you did there.
Ooh, oooh, oooh!! I know, I know!! Pick me!! *waving arms about maniacally*
Could it be P.J. O’Rourke?!!
*gives HelOnWheels a big cookie*
You are correct!
Yay!
*chews* Dith ith delithious! *talks with mouth full of yummy cookie* Wuths *chew* in *drool* it? *chew. nom. chew. drool* It’s a dark side cookie, isn’t it?
Lol…yes, it’s an official Dark Side Peanut-butter Oatmeal Chocolate Chip cookie, heavy on the chocolate. Milk?
Blue milk?
I feel really dumb, but I have to admit I’m not getting this. I’m going to feel even dumber when you tell me, won’t I?
It’s obscure — someone had to point it out to me, and I’ve seen the movie a lot.
In Episode IV, Luke is drinking blue milk while talking to Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru (I think it’s the “I need you for another harvest” scene). It just seems like Dark Side cookies should be washed down with blue milk.
(According to Wikipedia, it was also in Episode II; I had no idea. Also, because that movie stunk, I’m going to ignore it, to preserve the reputation of blue milk.)
Oh, ok! Been a while since I’ve seen that. (Oh, and in my universe, Episodes I and II do not exist! III was good, though.)
Good philosophy.
I @ II were crap. III almost feels like a Star Wars movie.
Episode III= Diet Star Wars
Mina, Diet Star Wars is still better than “Star Wars that’s so bad that it ceases to be Star Wars and creates its own category of suck that sucks so hard that it collapses upon itself and creates a black hole of such amazing suckiness that nothing has ever sucked as hard as this has sucked. Except for maybe Highlander 2.”
LMAO, no, I know that. I was commenting on the “almost feels like a Star Wars movie” part. I was going to make similar comparisons for the other two, but couldn’t come up with anything bad enough that wouldn’t have caused issues with the mods. But you did a beautiful job of it!
Every once in a while i get a little wood on the ball
Plus, I hate George Lucas for destroying the franchise of my childhood. He took away my innocence, and for that, I will never forgive him. NEVAH!!!
*looks up from a brooding depression*
You’re right froo… He has taken the balance… and tipped it..
*brandishes his yellow “bladed” lightsaber*
We must…. restore…. the balance!
Yes, thanks. It’s the best cookie EVER. Almost worth losing your soulf to the Dark Side. Almost.
P.J. O’Rourke
Excellent, but HelOnWheels already got the cookie…..
*fumbles through desk*
Ummm….want some gum? Or a pen?
Pen please.. the gum sticks to my dentures..
And it was a delicious cookie from the Dark Side. Not that I’m taunting you, Eddie, with the yumminess of the cookie.
Gee, thanks for taunting me.. BTW, we’re having root beer floats.. want one?
Thanks, but no. I’m full of blue milk now.
PJ O’Rourke. A hero of mine because he’s so damn funny! Do I get the cookie?
Bugger. Classroom over-eagerness fail. *retires mumbling to desk and starts rummaging around in it to hide red face*
‘S okay. I found a few extra cookies. There’s always Super Special DarkSide Cookies for P.J. fans.
Nom nom nom. Ooer! They are a bit on the dark side… mwahahahahahaha!
Wait, what? I had the answer second, damn it! And hey, I even let you step on the lawn and still no cookie?
The injustice!
*sigh*
Cookies all around. For reals.
Don’t want it now.. you should have thought of me before!
How’s that for spoilt and petulant? Did I pull it off ok?
THIS usually works for me….
My son tries that look on me. What he doesn’t know is that I used that same look on my mom, so I know better.
I guess you don’t believe in that “We the People….” thing?
Sure he does — he just defines “we” to mean “people as smart and ruggedly handsome as me”. (And of course the idea that someone else might do the same thing to him doesn’t enter his smug little mind.)
metacafe.com/watch/183123/we_the_people/
Sooo, if the government is run by people, does that mean the government is petty, stupid and selfish?
Yes, yes it does.
I thought that was a given.
I think it’s safe to say Mx9 is a hopeless optimist.
Chuvel, here is something I think you NEED.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/183123/we_the_people/
Apparently some of those people are pompous asses. By people, I mean you. Just in case there was any confusion.
Wonderful quote!
Any more Friday the 13th movies in the works?
So – it’s “exercising your right to freedom of speech” when the liberals do it, and it’s “terrorism” when the conservatives do it. RAWK.
Absolutely not, but impling that you’ll bring a gun next time to a rally implies violence. If it were peaceful, he’d have brought it this time. This guy was allowed to carry this sign, he didn’t get arrest, no one even noticed but the person who took this picture probably.
Meh, after awhile ya get used to that standard(especially round here). Seeing as this guy was in California though, he’s probably saying inside, “I’ll be back”.
When you bring signs threatening armed response to a protest, it borders on terrorism, regardless of who does it. Context is important, remember this lesson.
But it’s the same context.
People against Bush: We should kill him.
People against Obama: We’ll bring guns (I guess to kill him).
I never heard anyone call the first groups terrorists. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s stupid no matter what, but just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t magically change the context.
I’m not defending anyone, I’m saying that threats like this are unacceptable at a protest. The context I’m talking about is that he’s participating in a protest, not the nature of the protest. Sorry for the confusion. If he wasn’t in a protest this would be weird, but acceptable.
You would have never made it back in the 1770s.
What does this have to do with the 1770′s?
Think of the protests back then. And the guns they carried to them.
Tea Party anyone? Boston? Tonight? On my merchant marina? The theme is Indian War chiefs.
I heard that they hung an effigy of King George the other day. Something about “Give me liberty, or give me death.” Funny, no one seems to be afraid of being convicted for treason. Oh, yeah, that’s right. We are armed to the teeth.
Folks, seriously, are we really gonna start a revolution now? (here in 2009, not the funny & clever 1770′s bit you’re doing) No, we’re not. Nothing is happening that’s worth a revolution.
Oh yeah, tea party… oh wait I had another post in this thread that sjowed the “tea baggers.”
I don’t really see those morons starting a revolution.
I took this sign to a whole new level…I was pretty sure he was referring to masturbating without arms, which would be pretty difficult, give the guy some credit!
He must be VERY flexible.
Be careful. You remember how Randall’s cousin Walter died.
LOL!! And the old guy in the bathroom.
Funny, I saw Walter, and thought about Jeff FF FF Dunhaaaaaammmm.
No, it’s from “Clerks”.
Right, I was just saying that it made me think about Jeff ah FF FF.
Dot Commmm
Hey Bruno!
old man which say say he came…
say what?
I think he’s having a stroke.
he said “stroke!” *he must like Bill Clinton.*
unarmed in mind and firearms right?
at least he’s not dead in france
true, then he would be a wine drinking zombie who wants to eat brains but is to drunk to find any, so he has to settle for cow-brain quiche which makes him feel full, yet surprisingly eager to run away from something, so he builds a wall to keep the non-zombies out, but they run aroung the side and beat him with sausage…. wait, did I say that out loud?
Actually, protesters *have* been bringing guns to rallies recently, which is a troubling development. When people have to use guns to make their point, they must not have a very good point.
I can only see this leading to deadly violence in the future.
I think somebody said something about people on the left bringing guns back in the day too. So the recently (which I”m assuming is code for “conservatives”)part isn’t entirely correct.
If the only way you can make a point is with a gun, then I’d say you have a very hollow point.
(ba-dum-bum-ching)
*golf claps*
GEE people using their second amendment right, how silly of them. Why do you pick and choose which Amendments to find troubling?
I have to admit, it does make me a little nervous. I mean I get it. Exercising their right to the bear arms just to prove a point. But it still makes me nervous. :-\
It made the Brits nervous too.
What makes me feel more nervous is a government that is still trying to push through an agenda the people do not want. What worries me are elementary schools making students sing praising songs to the president. What worries me is when I choose to use my 1st Amendment Right I’m labelled a racist, terrorist, gun toting redneck, while thumbing my bible, by the same people who cried bloody murder when conservative pundits called them unpatriotic. un american when they protested the war.
How is carrying a gun any different than voting? Marching in protest? Why do some liberals fear guns? Just b/c someone has a gun, it doesn’t mean they’re going to use it. It’s like saying just b/c someone knows a martial arts that they’re going to just go up and kick someone’s a$$ b/c they can. I don’t get it, please enlighten me.
I see your point, Max, but consider this: Sometimes in order to make a point that people will actually listen to, you have to shock them in some way.
I’m not trying to compare what this guy is doing to great literature, but Dante’s “Inferno” was a shocker to people who were expecting Hell to be a fiery place with brimstone raining down. For Dante to make Hell covered in ice actually made you stop and actually digest what he was trying to say to you.
Over-exaggeration and satire sometimes are the only way to get the job done.
Or you could use such astounding wit and intelligence that you’re immediately branded a socialist
*checks Max’s posterior regions*
Yes, yes, that brand is healing nicely
*puts away irons*
I also want to know if all of us liberals are just tree hugging hippies and a bunch of wusses… why would you even HAVE to bring up guns? You could threaten to start using leaded gasoline again… or burning every starbucks to the ground… I mean there are a LOT more scary things to us liberals than guns ya know..
Like killer swamp rabbits.
I don’t fear guns, in fact I own a couple myself, what the dispute is about is the inherent threat implied by the sign. And there are no schools making children signing praising songs about the President.
Check that about the schools. Sorry but CNN, MSNBC didn’t cover the story, but check out You Tube. Can’t link it at work or I would.
How is there an inherent threat here. He says he may bring his gun next time, or he says something like “At least this time I didn’t bring my gun”. Where does he say he’s going to use it? That’s the question NO ONE has answered. Why is it, b/c I’m carrying something I’m going to use it?
Is the President making anyone sing praising songs to him? I don’t think so. If schools are doing that, blame the morons running the school.
PSST!!!! The school’s represent the government. I never said I blamed Obama for that. However y’all are scared of one guy with a sign that says he’s unarmed. I’m scarred of school officials who brainwash children VICE teaching them. It just shows what this administration had done to this country.
Just b/c you have free speech doesn’t mean you don’t have to write picket signs when you go to a protest…. hey wait that seems.
I got it, just b/c you have the right to vote doesn’t mean you have to show up at the voting booth on…. hey wait a minute.
For what are they using their second amendment right?
The right to carry a gun. I find it entertaining that some people think a gun is more dangerous than words.
**Throws out the Hitler post**
Never once have a seen a picture of Hilter carrying, holding, or wearing anytime of gun.
What does the right to carry guns have to do with town hall meetings? I still don’t see the connection.
SB: People are calling this guy a terrorist for looking to exercise is 2nd Amendment. I’m trying to figure out how people can decide which Amendments are acceptable to allow.
Yeah, listen, I don’t think the guy is a terrorist, but I still don’t understand what toting a gun to a town hall on health care accomplishes. If there were a bill banning the possession of firearms, for example, I could see the point in observing the second amendment right to bear arms. I fail to see the point in packing heat to a town hall meeting on health care. Seems like a douche bag maneuver, frankly.
Hmmm…words…
BANG BANG BANG! DIE DIE DIE!
Did it kill you? No? Okay, let me try with this gun here…
Malcom X, Hitler, KKK, and other hate mongers use words to incite violence. All I’m saying are words can be just as dangerous as a gun.
If it didn’t kill you.. You’d probably be wishing for some national healthcare.
I’m just sayin..
After the mess I went through tonight over some prescription medication that left my poor little girl stuck in the hospital tonight instead of getting to come. It’s a long story, but essentially due to my crappy insurance, she won’t get her meds until tomorrow which means she has to stay an extra night. Yeah, I want to see some national health care.
*home*
Yes, come home. Sorry, I haven’t gotten a whole lot of sleep the last couple nights.
I just didn’t want you to be the victim of some trolling comments. Hope the daughter is going to be ok!!
Damn… that’s outrageous. When did doctors lose their souls?
It’s not the doctors specifically. What it comes down to is that my daughter can’t be allowed to go home until she can get her prescriptions. My prescription insurance only goes to certain pharmacies, primarily grocery store chains. So essentially we can’t go to a pharmacy that’s actually open late unless we want to pay outrageous out of pocket prices. So because of this, she has to stay another night at the hospital. It’s really aggravating because she’s doing much better and was supposed to come home tonight.
And there again, you can point to the HMO’s since they’re the ones that set up who they will dea withl in the network. I guess I’m fortunate in that we can go to any pharmacy dya or night and get a prescription filled.
Yup. And again, Eddie, this is what 1/3 of my paycheck goes to. *sigh*
Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you meant something completely different.
Stupidest Lol this week. Stupidest defense of a Lol EVER.
Okay, Carrying a gun is NOT a “terrorist” act, no matter what the Trepanated Left would have you believe.
Letting other people KNOW that you carry a gun is NOT a terrorist act.
Letting people know that you are THINKING about MAYBE carrying a gun ant some unspecified point in the future (which is what this guy is ACTUALLY doing) is NOT a terrorist act.
If you think any of the above acts ARE terrorist acts, please turn in your voter registration card immediately, as you are clearly mentally incompetent, and therefore are not permitted to vote.
Also, set yourself on fire.
The on fire part? Really?
I think Slagg’s panties are on fire, very likely causing the complete lack of a sense of humor. So, maybe that was a very round-about way of asking for a fire extinguisher?
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
Just ask man. Just ask.
That’s because Slagg is a liar.
Slagg pretty much sucks. *nods enthusiastically*
In what way exactly, you useless idiot?
You’ve got issues, dude. Major anger management issues.
No, I only have issues with stupid people. Blatant idiocy is pretty much my only trigger.
The fact that I get triggered a LOT is only evidence of the idiots’ overwhelming numerical superiority. A major flaw in our societal system is there are so few checks on fools.
Either that, or antibiotics.
‘Cause given that much circularity, it’s quite likely that “my panties are on fire” is code for “Maybe having sex with the Dallas Cowboys wasn’t such a great idea.”
It could be considered “menacing” in some situations. I’m not calling him a terrorist, but he definitely is pushing his first amendment rights. This protester is just a total dick.
P.S. “Menacing” is a real criminal charge. I don’t really know the specifics, and usually such a charge only results in a fine; but I’m just saying bullying by implying the possible use of violence is illegal. I.E: Setting a gun out on a nearby surface while arguing with someone. (Not a great example, but think of scenes like that from movies, that’s menacing.)
Go figure. Hold up a sign that says “FUGB,” get arrested.
Hold up a sign implying that you’ll shoot a different president, get 15 minutes of fame and a half-dozen people adoringly defending you.
Is there something on the back of the sign you’re not telling us about?
Appearently not “FUGB”…
If there was a law about being a “total dick” when expressing one’s First Amendment rights, MOST protesters would be in jail for violating it. Especially the flag-burners. And anybody who “wins” arguments by repetitively shouting slogans progressively louder.
And no, there shouldn’t be a law against that, either. Burning the flag isn’t a crime or a sacreliege. It’s just evidence that the burner has run out of interesting things to say.
Wow when did libs start cutting holes in their heads? I must have missed that meeting.
Egon Spengler suggested it.
it would of worked if peter hadn’t of stopped him
It falls under “alternative medicine.” All the rage now.
They started in the late 1800′s, in order to remove the parts of the brain that can do simple math and understand basic economics.
This is how Liberals manage to believe that having 15 million people controlling 90% of the money is BAD, but having 535 people controlling ALL of the money would be GOOD.
If this guy were in a crowd on your front lawn, you’d be (1) calling 9-1-1 in a shrill squeal, and (2) urinating copiously through your underwear. But of course, it isn’t happening to you, so you’re okay with it, HAW HAW.
Why? If he were on my front yard, I’d be a hell of a lot closer to my guns than he is to his. I’d have total Neighborhood Superiority.
Plus, I can act a lot faster than the Police can.
You’re just not very smart, I understand. Poor thing.
i fly a rocket ship!
see i can talk big talk on the interwebz too and not have to back it up…and you cant prove i DONT have a rocket ship..so it must be true
OK, here’s the deal.. I’ve been looking at the pic and for some reason, it just doesn’t look quite right to me. I’m not going to go out on a limb and say it’s photoshopped, but something just doesn’t gel.
I think it’s the fact that the people in the background are blurry. It just looks like a real photographer took it. We don’t see much of that on the interwebs anymore. I could be wrong though.
I know exactly what you mean, and I finally figured out what makes it weird looking:
1) The letters look like they were printed on the sign, they’re too perfect, and I’ve never heard of a printer that size able to print on what looks like card-stock.
2) The sign looks somewhat pixelated, but the rest of the picture is clear. Now I may not be any kind of photoshop guru, but isn’t uneven pixelation one of the telltale signs of editing software?
See here — it doesn’t look like cardstock exactly; more like the stuff real estate lawn signs are made out of.
If you have enough money, you can get signs printed on vinyl at Kinko’s. They’re actually not that expensive.
I thought that at first, but I googled for the caption: I couldn’t find that particular picture, but I did find a few other shots of people with identical signs. While it’s possible this particular image is photoshopped, I’m assuming the sign itself is real.
Ok, I did a google search as well and did see some other pics. It just looks too perfect, but I’ll accept that it’s legit.
1. look in top left of screen – the Pundit Kitchen picture logo.
2. look underneath for the tag line. Read.
3. “Political Fun in Pictures”.
4. select word “fun”. Try a dictionary if you are not sure of its meaning.
5. have lots of this”fun”.
6. repeat often.
7. stop taking yourselves so seriously.
8. repeat that often as well.
9. byeeee!
Do you have a point (besides the one on top of your head)?
I don’t think they’re having fun, Eds.
*thinks*
Pinata time?
*hands diss a baseball bat* Please whack the hell out of it at your leisure.
*whacks at overly-critical drive-by poster*
Aw, they didn’t have any candy in them….
Hmmm…well…I got dibs on the liver that fell out of him/her!
Try it with some fava beans, and a nice chianti.
*sucks on his teeth repeatedly*
my point is bigger than yours, Eddie ! ! !
or could this be not all revolutionists……..
he was robbed on his way home by Burgundian Dwarfs !
I have to agree with the majority here. The fact that the sign says “we” invalidates your entire argument about this one guy saying “he” is going to bring a gun and start shooting people.
Clearly, he’s sending a message to the government that unless they start listening to “we the people” there’s going to be trouble.
Simple as that.
Meant to say “the entire argument”, not “your entire argument”…
he has a wii?
No, a weewee. Probably. That might be difficult to verify.
“We” = his terrorist cell.
I always get confused by the multiplicity of meanings for that word… do you mean his room in Gitmo, his brain cell that tells him to threaten people, the mobile phone he uses to call his terrorist friends, or the AA that threatens to blow itself up if he doesn’t recharge it?
You left one out.
If this has already been pointed out, I apologize for the reposting of it, but I’m at work and can’t read every single comment.
Is it possible he/they came armed last time? Maybe he just wants to specify that they’re not this time so they don’t get in trouble or something. Just a thought.
There were armed individuals at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, but nothing came of it because NH is an open carry state (Yay, NH!!)
Your theory is as valid as anyone else’s, but I imagine that he’s making a comment on all of the flap over legally carrying citizens showing up at meetings and NOT causing trouble. There were exactly zero arrests of anyone carrying guns.
Just imagine what would have happened during the Bush years, when people were thrown out of events or arrested for wearing t-shirts.
It did happen during the Bush years. People have short memories. Or shall we completely discount the movie made about how to assassinate Bush (an actual threat, if you ask me), the stamps with a gun to Bush’s head (but it’s art!!!!), and other inflammatory idiocy associated with fringe groups. At least in this case no one has actually started anything. Simply carrying a gun around in a holster in an open-carry state is hardly a threat.
And, I’m afraid you’re going to have to give me a cite for people being thrown out of Bush rallys for wearing tee shirts, or I’m going to label you up as full of crap.
There was Cindy Sheehan, arrested for wearing a t-shirt that said “2245 Dead. How many more?” at Bush’s State of the Union address in Feb. of ’06. Cindy had been given a ticket to the event by California Democratic Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey.
Police ejected Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Young, R-Fla., for wearing a shirt that said “Support the Troops – Defending Our Freedom.”
In Denver [in 2005], three people were thrown out of a Bush town-hall meeting on Social Security after they arrived in a car sporting a bumper sticker that proclaimed: “No more blood for oil” and wore T-shirts under their other clothes that said “Stop the Lies.”
In Charleston, W. Va., for example, a couple was arrested for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts to a Bush campaign rally in the state capitol building on the Fourth of July. Police said they acted under orders from federal officials. The charges were later dropped and the mayor apologized.
In Saginaw, Mich., Bush campaign workers ejected a woman for wearing a pro-choice T-shirt. The campaign said at the time that it had to throw out people who might make a scene.
{http://bit.ly/2HoR00}
Shall I go on?
Those aren’t cites, darling. I need physical evidence. Published news stories, archived articles, things like that. Otherwise, you’re still spouting, and I can do that too.
I’m not going to do the research for you, “darling”. I read about incidences like these all throughout Bush’s presidency. The stories are out there in countless archived reports. Really, it would be very difficult for you to disprove it. Maybe you’re too young to remember.
Nice. So you are asking me to do the research for which you are making claims? I wasn’t aware you were paying me as your research assistant
Do better. If you make a claim on here, you have to be prepared to back it up. Just saying “I read it one time in this newspaper or it could have been a magazine I’m not sure but I KNOW I read it somewhere” doesn’t work as proof.
To satisfy your curiosity, but not your arrogance:
{http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/}
From the WV Gazette (you have to pay to access the archives, but you can see the headlines about it)
{http://bit.ly/4zxR0u}
Now you can tell me that’s not enough, that you don’t trust anything MSNBC says, that the sources aren’t credible, blah, blah blah. I could drag those people to your house and have them personally tell you their stories and you probably still wouldn’t believe it. Spare me that.
I will not accept your second source, as there are plenty of research studies on bias involved in headlines. Sensationalism sells, and the way to get a story sold is to put inflammatory things into headlines that are explained in greater detail later in the story. So we don’t know exactly what’s going on in those stories, now do we?
As far as the MSNBC source, I don’t personally have a problem with it, but the facts remain that Cindy Sheehan is a notorious protestor (who was recently told by Charlie Gibson that “enough is enough” when she went to see President Obama at the White House) who was known for causing disturbances at the Crawford Ranch and other places. According to the very story you linked, all charges were dropped and nothing came of it. The second lady (who called the police “idiots”) was kicked out after calling them idiots for asking her not to wear a protesting tee shirt, as has been done to many others in the past. From your article: “Guests in the gallery who wear shirts deemed political in nature have, in past years, been asked to change or cover them up.” This doesn’t seem beyond the pale. Nothing came of her being kicked out either.
You’re doing better, but you’re still not proving your original implication that people were just willy nilly thrown out of Bush rallys simply for wearing the wrong type of tee shirt. According to the very cites you provided, that’s simply not true.
I don’t care what the outcome was. They were thrown out for wearing t-shirts deemed offensive. You said it didn’t happen. It did. You can dance around it all you like.
[Beverly] Young’s shirt had a message with a different tone: “Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom.”
“They said I was protesting,” Young told the St. Petersburg Times. “I said, ‘Read my shirt, it is not a protest.’ They said, ‘We consider that a protest.’ I said, ‘Then you are an idiot.”’
Quite different from the way you painted it. Besides, she’s the wife of a Republican congressman.
Actually, the article says they were kicked out because of political protests. Ms. Young was clearly kicked out AFTER she was questioned about her tee shirt and called the officers “idiots”. With her being a member of the “ruling party” at the time, I’d wager that this particular incident wasn’t politically motivated at all, since it seems to cross all party and ideological lines.
Ms. Sheehan was asked to cover up her tee shirt and did not, constituting a protest. Since you only provided one source for your assertion, allow me to provide another, equally unbiased source that shows that Ms. Sheehan was asked to abide by the rules of the Capitol and did not. {http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/sheehan.arrest/index.html}
Now, since I have used my powers of Google to be your research assistant so that you don’t come off as a blithering idiot, when can I expect my check in the mail?
As soon as you write yourself one. In the memo section, you can write “payment for being a horse’s ass”.
*writes down 9:05PM on notepad*
Ok, who had 9-10PM in the pool for name calling?
BINGO!!
Ms Sheehan sure was a wuss when she tried to come to Charlotte. She declared that the baseball park next to WBT radio was where she was going to protest Bush, and the locals caught on. They went and rented it, and offered to play softball with her. She wouldn’t even get out of the car. She then got mad and went to liberal, err, public radio and declared that her life was threatened. Which it was not.
Am I the only one who finds it EXTREMELY disturbing that exercise of free speech (calling a policeman an idiot without threatening them), is now grounds for arrest in many states?
I don’t care what party Ms. Young belongs to. If she went quietly, there’s no trespass. Unless she was violently resisting (i.e. throwing elbows around like Don’t Taze Me Bro did), they should have had no grounds for arrest.
My mistake; I mistakenly took the thread of references to Sheehan and Young to be literally accurate. Sheehan was arrested for wearing a “2245 Dead” shirt, Young was asked to leave for wearing a “Defending Our Freedom” shirt and calling the police idiots.
But for the record, the reason it was easy to believe is that in many states there are laws that you can be arrested for insulting a policeman. Not threatening, insulting. No, I’m not kidding.
So I think we’ve established that it’s okay to carry guns to a town hall meeting, but it is not okay to wear certain tee shirts to a town hall meeting.
That makes sense. Oh wait, no, my bad, that doesn’t make any fcuking sense at all.
S_B, they weren’t kicked out of a town hall meeting. They were kicked out of the State of the Union address which took place at the Capitol. BIG difference. There are rules of decorum that are enforced at the Capitol, and these two ladies aren’t the only people instructed to cover up what could be inflammatory tee shirts.
As far as the town hall meetings are concerned, the guys with guns were within their legal rights to carry a weapon, as the state is an open carry state. They didn’t cause trouble, made no overt moves even when questioned by police, and weren’t doing anything wrong.
Ms. Sheehan and Ms. Young were thrown out because they refused to cooperate with Capitol law enforcement and the rules of the Chamber.
I saw than Cindy Sheehan was arrested for “demonstrating in the capitol building.” So, I tried to look up “state of the union address decorum” and “state of the union address dress code,” then, “demonstrating in the capitol building,” then, “is it illegal to demonstrate in the capitol building,” and “rules of the chamber” and “capitol law enforcement,” but I couldn’t find anything that specified what is and is not acceptable attire for those who are invited to attend the State of the Union address.
What you are saying is that people have the legal right to carry guns to forums that have nothing to do with gun rights, but people can be arrested for wearing the wrong shirt to the State of the Union address…yeah, still makes no fcuking sense at all.
Ms blonde, you didn’t find that info because, according to Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer, it’s unwritten.
“The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol,” Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.
“The policy and procedures were too vague,” he added. “The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine.”
Gainer apologized to both Sheehan and Young for the fact that they were unjustly asked to leave because of the t-shirts they were wearing. So if wearing a t-shirt can be considered “protesting”, what do they consider carrying a gun? I guess they think wearing a t-shirt is far more dangerous. If a guy with a gun had been asked to leave, would he have complied? Or would he have protested that he had a right to carry it? If he had been arrested for not complying with an order to leave, would the NRA have kept quiet? One wonders.
As far as I know, carrying guns on Capitol property is forbidden by law, not just by unwritten laws of decorum. Completely different.
Further proof that liberalism is a dangerous mental disorder.
The world according to liberal idiots: abortion is a “right”, really? Show me where it says that in the constitution. Health care is a “right”, really? Show me where it says that in the constitution. But when something IS in the constitution….you ignore it. While you whine about people having guns LEGALLY, you bend over backwards to create MORE criminals through all your pathetic “social programs” that reward scum bags for being scum bags and punish normal people for working.
How much further do we have to go down the toilet do we have to go before you GET IT?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Hey, calm the FVCK down.
You’ll get ulcers if you keep on that way. Toddle off now and take your meds.
“abortion is a “right”, really? Show me where it says that in the constitution.”
Yeah, ‘cos the constitution covers everything and is infallible. Feel free to use your guns on yourself anytime, pal. Some blood pressure medication might not be a bad idea, btw.
So if I said socialism would be awesome, would you have a seizure?
I see wowie is under the common misperception that the Constitution grants us our rights. Wowie, NEWS FLASH — it doesn’t. Our rights are OURS — endowed by our creator, whomever we see that as. The Constitution limits the government’s ability to interfere in our lives, which are ours to live as we see fit providing they do not tread on the lives of others. The second Amendment guarantees the rights of the individual as a part of a regulated militia — ie the states.
@ wow
Liberal: 1) Open to new behaviour or opinions and willing to discard traditional values
A) Favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
B) (in a political context) Favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.
2) [attrib.] (of education) Concerned mainly with broadening a person’s general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.
“Uh-oh, better lock those crazy liberals up, they might give everyone equal rights, even those dumb women and those dirty little brown people! They might even try to prevent all us good God-fearing christians from ridiculing people with scary different ideas, we can’t allow that! Worst of all, they might actually try to educate our children on a broad spectrum of ideas and topics! We must stop them before we no longer have an excuse to be ignorant!”
You don’t even fully understand the constitution it would seem. See that part that says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..” bit? That’s called a qualifier, it means that people have a right to guns as long as a militia is necessary. When was the last time a state militia was necessary, pray tell? You’re parading around a document you don’t even understand and it shows! You’re making an idiot of yourself and you don’t even realize it!
P.S. I’m not attacking the right to bear arms here, I’m just making sure wow understands that he’s a fool.
Not to quibble, but your own personal misinterpretation of “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” is as wrong as most.
Nonetheless, the phrasing in no way limits the right to keep and bear arms to specific occasions when you or somebody else has deemed a militia to be necessary. Otherwise, a commonly used word in the founders’ days, “when” would have preceded the bit about a well regulated militia, to qualify or otherwise limit the right delineated in the ammendment.
No matter how much you torture logic, or the English language, there is no ambiguity anywhere in the statement “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
If you want to disarm the law-abiding, taxpaying citizens of this country, pass your own damn ammendment. Until then, quit butt-raping the English language with your twisted logic.
No-one should be arguing that the Second limits when you can own weapons. The point was to limit the general ownership of weapons to hunting pieces, and of military grade weapons to members of a properly trained militia. If you can tell me what you would hunt with an Uzi or a Skorpion, or show that you’re a reservist, then fine have one.
I’m not saying that, I’m just trying to make “wow” feel stupid. People like him have a very narrow interpretation of the constitution, basically if it doesn’t say you specifically have that right you don’t have it. So, by his logic, every amendment is to be interpreted literally, which is what I did to the second amendment in my post. Sorry for the confusion, I was just making a point.
P.S. I personally don’t approve of the second amendment, but I don’t think it’s practical to abolish it because there are already so many guns out there.
this is perfect
you do realize that the sign was blank and the LOL’er put on it what he/she wanted.
Turning up at a rally with a blank sign FAIL.
You mean this isn’t the Apathy Rally? Aw, crap…
I almost went to the Apathy Rally, but I didn’t really give a crap.
I was going to go but I heard they couldn’t be bothered to put one together.
No one showed up!
Except the media.
Frankly, we don’t give a crap about that either. I tried to go to the ADD rally but I get easily
Then there’s that procrastinators rally… I’ll go next year…
the Claustrophobia Rally was a catastrophe. They held it in this tiny meeting room and well, you can imagine the rest.
I went to the nostalgics rally. Man, they don’t do rallies like that any more…
…flaccid proof…
Don’t hold back! More! more of your widsom!
…adhere to the coast…
At least until you’ve built the Lighthouse, or developed sufficient tech to build caravels as well as biremes.
…for this craft will not stay right in the open water…
@lx5 – viagra might help with that flaccid issue
In the UK the placard would be redundant. We would know he came unarmed this time because if he were armed he would have been arrested. And there wouldn’t be a next time. And even the police seldom carry arms, because the public don’t. When the police DO carry arms they tend to end up shooting innocent civilians by mistake.
Same thing happens here, except more than just the police kill the wrong people by accident.
Come on now, be fair. Sometimes people kill who they intended.
Especially when they shoot at you first!
*hastily hides .44 behind her back* Whut?
So people just kill each other with knives and bats over there and the cops can’t stop them until it’s too late…
Or maybe that slingshot and machete from the other LOL?
Statistics on violent crime (2002), the US vs. the UK, annual / per capita:
Murders:
US = 0.042802 per 1,000 people
UK = 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
Murders with firearms:
US = 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
UK = 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
{http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita}
What’s sad is, isn’t this common knowledge? Doesn’t everyone know that there isn’t much gun crime in the UK? Did this even need to be cited?
Well, it’s only because of the lack of guns. If we were all packing like the Americans, London would be like Mogadishu. I wouldn’t trust ME with a gun…
but suicide, you forgot a couple essential points — we have the revolutionary war and the war of 1812 as evidence we can cast off the reins of despotic rulers, they have the gunpowder plot and edward the viii
You can’t do a drive-by and shoot up an entire block with knives. Nor can you kill someone accidentally with a knife with any ease, same with killing the “wrong” person. BTW, some police do have guns over there.
Well, you could if you were a ninja. (^_~)
Angry confused white guys have it rough!
I don’t see anyone confused in the picture…
so someone reminding the government they don’t really run the country is a terrorist now.
i, for one, welcome our new liberal overlords. stay classy.
as opposed to the conservative overlords? define classy
It’s good to remind the politicians once in awhile that they are NOT Lord and Master of all of us. They tend to grab their necks when you mention the French revolution.
Bows deeply to TheOne… *backs away bowing*
Or you could, I dunno, vote out the one’s you don’t like…
The only problem with that is you have to have a viable opponent you’re willing to support.
Now you’re cooking with gas.
Taste the meat, not the heat!!! ™ Strickland Propane
Doesn’t say much about the opponents to the liberal overlords, huh?
The French Revolution was an aimless and bloody uprising by the illiterate uneducated masses of peasants. Sure, they had a reason to rebel, but they kinda went overboard when they killed all politicians, lawyers, basically anyone who was smarter than them; most of whom had done nothing wrong. They freed themselves for about a year or two, basically existed in a state of anarchy due to a useless government, and then were promptly invaded and placed under a more oppressive government. It’s good to see who your heros are “TheOne”, it gives a good view into the workings of your mind, or lack thereof.
Well, lots of comments on this one-no surprise. All I have to say, is that I remind everyone that one of the main reasons for the second ammendment right to keep and bear arms was to protect us from a government gone out of control-not to hunt or target shoot. Perhaps we are reaching that point? I suppose then, since that was the primary context of it, then the framers were terrorists? No, just far-thinking and well-experienced in out-of-control governments.
Comment Win.
Listen, the problem with our government isn’t our government. The problem is with the voters. The masses WANT more government, more intrusion, more gifts paid for by other people’s money.
The US is no longer a representative republic, it is a democracy (universal suffrage). Do you know the difference between democracy and anarchy?
Anarchy is mob rule on a local level.
Democracy is mob rule on a national level.
That mob is what is causing the problem. Too many voters no longer want to take responsibility for themselves and want the government to take care of them (having “the rich” pay for it all, of course).
Therefore, voting won’t be a solution to the problem. America will continue to degenerate. The only solutions are (personal) to leave the country for greener pastures or (collective) revolt and overthrow the government.
Choice is yours.
Which non-democractic country has these “greener pastures”, free of the problems that come from allowing people to vote?
All countries which allow universal suffrage will tend towards socialism and eventual economic collapse. It’s a matter of when, not if, due to the realities of human nature.
However, that doesn’t mean that all countries which are democracies are at that point near collapse. So one can migrate to a democracy that has not yet sunk to entitlement culture and have a family there which won’t have to relocate for at least a few more generations (Columbia is a fine example) or one can seek something with even less risk like China.
It’s a question of calculating and selecting appropriate risk, rather than the all or nothing approach you think applies.
Oh, and voting is not the problem. The problem is allowing EVERYONE to vote. The two best forms of government (for the people) are benevolent dictatorships and limited suffrage. The problem with the former is that the dictator eventually dies, unless said dictator is God; and the problem with the latter is they eventually get stupid and allow everyone to vote.
So how do you decide who gets to vote then?
The best method of deciding who gets to vote is something that is obtainable by all rather than having a permanently disenfranchised class of citizens. You want it so the “self-sufficient” are voting and those who are depending on the government are not (as those people will, of course, always vote for more from other people’s pocketbooks). Therefore, dividing along racial lines is a poor choice, as the non-voters will never become empowered and will instead create an extremely disgruntled faction of society.
I’ve seen a few ideas, one being a return to land-ownership being a requirement to vote (one vote per homestead, with a cap of one vote per person) which I feel is a very good idea. Another is an interesting idea of disenfranchising anyone who receives government assistance for a period of 5 to 10 years. You want to provide a path for non-voters to become voters so that they feel there is some way to gain full citizenship.
Basically, you want people who can take care of themselves able to vote and those who can’t not voting. Those who can take care of themselves will set up a limited federal government under which those who can will be better able to do so. This also helps those who can’t by lowering the demands of government (taxes) such that it is easier for them to transition to one who can than under the current system. In fact, one of the reasons the middle class is vanishing is our current form of nanny-state is making the divide between those who can and those who can’t very steep, and those who could just barely make it slide down into not able to make it.
I know there is “common (bad) knowledge” that government always tries to expand, but that is not true at all. The US government functioned at 3% of GNP from 1776 to 1920 (sans wartime). Once universal suffrage was instituted, our government grew from 3% to near 40% today. And why? We allowed those who can’t to vote, and those who can’t turned government into something to take care of them rather than what it was previously: something that took care of only what it had to take care of and otherwise got out of the way so people could take care of themselves.
And you don’t think that landowners will simply use their position as overlords to enact legislation that fiercely defends the status quo and prevents anyone in the underclass from ever getting into a position where they have votes?
Hollywood celebrities would have a hell of a lot of votes under these systems, I presume you’re fine with that though?
Why would landowners do that? They didn’t do it in the past. What they did was set up a government where they kept most of the money they made. That means everyone kept most of the money they made. And besides, once the “underclass” gets to a position where they can vote, they’ll want the same thing (to keep more of their own money!!). That’s the beauty of the system.
Hollywood would get one vote per homestead, to a maximum of one vote per person. How would that given them “a hell of a lot of votes”, perhaps other than to more easily afford a second homestead so both husband and wife can vote?
“Why would landowners do that? They didn’t do it in the past. ”
Yes they did and for hundreds of years. Just look at the Victorians protesting free education as they were afraid of the working classes learning to read anarchist booklets. Or the peon system in which the poor were essentially slaves to the landowners. Or race segregation before they were given the vote. Or the Indian caste system. Or look at almost every monarchy in history to see what happens when you have a ruling elite with no responsibilities to the lower classes.
“Or look at almost every monarchy in history to see what happens when you have a ruling elite with no responsibilities to the lower classes.”
The point You.
I’m talking about limited suffrage democracy, not monarchies.
“when you have a ruling elite with no responsibilities to the lower classes”
That is what you’re saying. If the lower classes can’t vote then theres no incentive to cater for them.
Exactly. We don’t cater to them at all. Catering to them IS the problem.
So your opinion in regards to THE MAJORITY of the population of your country is to egnore them? Then not funding any schools or free clinics and hope they suddenly get a few hundred thousand dollars and earn the right to vote?
Ignore the working class completely. Well, aren’t you the compassionate one.
The reason I mention the likes of Hollywood is that I think you vastly over-estimate how conservative a voter-base made up of the rich would be.
They don’t have to be “rich” they just have to be landowners.
The other trick is to set the bar such that you have a reasonable percentage of the population able to vote, yet not all. 30-60% is a good range to shoot for. Much above that you start to run into the mob distorting government again, and with much below that you create a power-hording oligarchy. You want to avoid both.
Isn’t giving the vote to “landowners only” just a way to making sure a disproportionate amount of the power goes to people in rural areas (and away from inner city areas where high population density means even those with good jobs often rent) simply because they tend to vote for the people you want to run the country?
I’ve seen it argued reasonably convincingly that people with an IQ below 100 shouldn’t vote, since they don’t actually understand the issues.
That seems to address your objections, and offer a chance of actual voter mobility in and out of the franchise.
As a non-landowner, I take serious offense at your idea. I prefer paws4thot’s idea about an IQ test, but that can be really subjective as well.
How about we just realize that every civilized nation in the history of the world has gone through a cycle of becoming civilized, building on that to become a power, usually building up to be a superpower (if big enough), then continues an easily predictable slide back into NOT being a power at all? It’s a really easy trend to see. No country, nation, or anything else is exempt from it, so why should the US be?
The US isn’t exempt, obviously. The thing is once you research the history, you find these countries making the same mistakes over and over. Universal suffrage and apathy go hand in hand. We haven’t learned from history, so we are repeating it (it doesn’t help that the history in question is very un-PC and therefore often ignored).
I understand that as a non-landowner you would take offense initially. The question is, is voting worth you buying a house and putting a stake into the continued survival of your locality/state/nation? It’s one of the reasons I think land ownership worked so well, owning land is a commitment to the area and you want to watch that area succeed so that your land raises in value.
Won’t we soon get into a situation where the people who own all the land completely refuse to sell it to anyone else and we end up with a monarchy style system where the only people who have power are those who inherited it?
Won’t some people just buy land for the votes and influence it brings and leave it barren?
What’s to stop someone who’s very rich buying large areas of land at the start of this system, chopping it up into small homesteads and giving it, for free, to a demographic he knows will vote for the people he wants in power?
The discussion of landownership just keeps making me think of this.
“It’s one of the reasons I think land ownership worked so well,”
It never worked for the majority. Only the rich who in turn wrote the records of the time.
It has nothing to do with my unwillingness to buy a house, it has everything to do with an INABILITY to buy a house or land. You’re treading on seriously dangerous ground, as Ceefax has pointed out. Eventually, no land will be sold by those who feel that I don’t need to be able to vote, and I’m now a disenfranchised American without a voice. Then we get into monarchy-style inheritance program, and you’ve got an even bigger divergence between the haves and the have nots.
“The US government functioned at 3% of GNP from 1776 to 1920 (sans wartime). Once universal suffrage was instituted, our government grew from 3% to near 40% today.” Yeah and the population rose from around 5 million to 300 million.
“The middle class is vanishing…” no it isn’t. The working class is vanishing as our wise and benevolent elite choose to send the ‘factory’ to exotic lands who don’t know the english for “union representation” or “pension program”. How are you even defining the Middle Class
In your dream Utopia, who pays to fix the sewage system in the poorest districts?
Wait, your argument is that the population grew and that’s why it went from 3% to 40%? Total non-sequitur. Total non-point. As the population increases, so does the raw GDP (more people making money). The percentage is what increased and what is important, not the obvious increase in absolute dollars.
Not to mention, the same things happened to France (1945) and Switzerland (1968) when they instituted universal suffrage.
Utopia? No such thing. A utopia is a perfect world. A perfect world cannot work without perfect people. If we had perfect people then we would already be in a utopia. We are not in a utopia, ergo people are not perfect, ergo utopias cannot exist.
All we can do is recognize the patterns of human behavior and make the best out of it.
Yep, those countries have also seen huge population booms. What do these populations need? Maintained roads, a standing army, a national police service, water networks, power plants, phone lines, education, health care, coast guards, administration, federal construction, housing programs, national parks, border control, immigration and international diplomacy. Then you need to monitor and maintain all those.
You still didn’t answer my question about the sewage.
“Yep, those countries have also seen huge population booms.”
So those countries only saw population booms exactly coinciding with granting universal suffrage? Must be some kind of conspiracy….
Honestly, do you put even two seconds of thought to the idea before you type out your arguments?
As for the sewage, the locality or the state provides for it. Depends on who’s jurisdiction it falls under.
Where did I say theres any link between suffrage and population growth? What I’m saying is the more people you have the more you need the government. Thens the need for a hugely complex system of communications, from roads to airports to telephones. It’s impor
But theres no voters there so why would the ruling class care? In Victorian London where the Thames was essentially an open sewage pipe killing thousands of the working from cholera. The stink was so nauseating it was even brought up by members of parliament (most of whom lived in out of town estates). The solution they came to? Bleach the curtains to block out the smell. They then made no further efforts for two years.
“Where did I say theres any link between suffrage and population growth?”
In your argument that governments got bigger due to population growth, yet the timing is that governments got bigger after universal suffrage. So for your argument to hold true, then universal suffrage and population booms must be linked.
Correlation is not causation.
The population boom was caused not by people suddenly producing triplets but by a rising life expectancy and declining infant mortality rates. Thanks to government work in health care, sanitation and funding into medical research people were beginning to live past puberty more often than not.
Still go ahead and tell me whether you’d choose to get rid off road networks or the army first. I recommend roads because you’ll need one hell of an army to hold back the 60% of the population who will have no say in it.
Actually if America’s like England then the figure would probably be closer to 20% are land owners. Especially in cities where people on six figure salaries are still only renting their apartment.
Nobody ever seems to advocate a voting system under which they personally won’t get a vote. They only seem to want a system under which they have a disproportionate amount of power at the expense of others. This time it’s land ownership. Another toe-rag suggested IQ as a basis for deciding who gets to vote. What, are you more equal than others then? What makes you any more virtuous than someone who wants to vote himself money out of the public purse? Why don’t you grow up?
Easy, because you mostly find people who don’t make their own money voting themselves money from the public purse.
They’re stealing from me, using government as the weapon.
Why are they more equal than me and entitled to my money? Like I said, land ownership was just one idea. I’ve heard of others that I can definitely support. But universal suffrage is a horrible thing.
so who do you want to disenfranchise? your daughter/wife/mother/grandmother? non-christians? non-whites? non-land-owners? those under 21′s who fight and die in your wars? non-literate? the poor who can’t pay the poll tax?
just who do you want to be less equal than you? the citizens of washington dc don’t have the right to vote in national elections, have you asked them how they feel being disenfranchised when it comes to picking the president of the us?
btw, it’s in our very foundation – no taxation without representation – that was one of the key issues that lead up to the revolutionary war. if you don’t like how your legislators conduct business, write courteous paper letters, make courteous phone calls, and then if they don’t make the changes you want, vote for someone else, but don’t try to take away the hard earned rights of fellow citizens because you don’t agree with them.
the majority of voters choose who goes into office, but once there, the elected officials have the duty to protect the rights of the minority as well as placate the demands of the majority.
Yeah. What bad fairie said. I couldn’t say it any better.
hah, you would have used fewer words
Well my science teachers did hammer ‘terse and pithy’ into my brain. Hard to get away from it after so many years of indoctrination!
lol, if i did short and to the point there it would have been to point out how archaic and supremeist he was sounding, then call him a knuckle-dragging troglodyte. what most of these nit-wits don’t get is that not too many generations back their families would have been excluded from voting, yet they want to go back to those standards? laws are passed to level the playing field, not to re-establish feudalism – ’tis called equality for all, not just a select few….
*snort* Yeah, I wouldn’t have been able to vote on a few points: 1) female, 2) renter, not homeowner until more recently, and 3) daughter of a male immigrant. But at least I can read!
That means NOTHING, VG. NOTHING!!!!! No vote for you! You come back, one year!
lol, yup, me too for the most part: female, native amer descent, non-christian, too d@mn broke to pay any poll tax on the 5th of nov because i just got done scrapping together my property taxes, not to mention this state has more special elections than anyone can shake a stick at!
“btw, it’s in our very foundation – no taxation without representation – that was one of the key issues that lead up to the revolutionary war.”
And it’s the exact opposite that will lead to our next revolution:
No representation without taxation.
Well, you can vote. So your concerns are being represented. You’d have to be a moron to think otherwise.
Yeah, well let’s talk about it when you’re old enough to vote.
No we have to talk about it now before he becomes of age. Otherwise we’ll get blamed for “neglecting the morals of our youth”… but of course if we talk about it with him now… we’re “Indoctrinating”… Seems we’re at a political rock and a hard place.
Well. he’s listening to death thrash metal on his Ipod now, so we’d be wasting our breath. Kids, eh?
I’d laugh if I didn’t think you actually believed it…
It’s OK, expressing a desire to attack America and overthrow the democratically elected leader through violence is patriotic now.
Yeah, I’m sure it was basically so that the people who lost elections could just kill the people who won and take control anyway.
Gah, nesting fail. That should have gone under Ukulelemike’s comment.
Funny that people who were for invading Iraq to give them democracy now want to overthrow democracy at home and start a dictatorship.
The fact the mods put this up is disturbing. It is not terrorism to expect the government to conform to the consent of the governed as outlined in our constitution. Terrorism is the violent form to change ideals of a people or culture. What the government does to us is teroristic. This is the people’s country and if we as the majority don’t like something then the government better take heed and listen.
If the majority don’t like something, they vote the government out. That’s the correct course of action, not having a tantrum and threatening violence against those who won the election.
Agreed, and since the majority did vote the government in in 2008…
Ceefax: What are your thoughts about all the protests that occured during Bush’s presidency? Or was that legit whining b/c it fell into your ideals?
Nonviolent protests are constitutionally-protected speech.
Advocating the violent overthrow of the government is not.
Isn’t a violent overthrow of the government exactly what the Founding Fathers did?
Yes and no. They seceded, and violence ensued when England wanted us to stay. They never overthrew anything. Also, they were under an unfair government, we’re not. We may have a crappy government, but we all get to vote, it’s hardly unfair. Also, we have mechanisms for reform the founding father’s did not. If you’ll remember, they were reluctant to go to war, even after the Boston massacre. Until something comparable occurs, I’ll continue to view the idea of a violent overthrow of our government as the thoughts of madmen.
Violent overthrow of the government is what Cromwell and his crowd did in England. What we did in the US was to object to being treated as indentured servants–a source of cheap labor with no recourse to our treatment.
Samuel Johnson on Americans. “Sir, they are a race of convicts, and ought to be thankful for anything we allow them short of hanging.”
Boswell: Life
Samuel jackson’s responce to Samuel Johnson
“MotherFcuker, MY MAMA is in the US, i will put more holes in you then the fake moon landing theroy if you try to hang my GodDman MotherFckuing mama!”
Which Mamma is Samuel L Jackson’s? She’s the one with bad muthafukkah on her.
I think protests against the Bush administration were fine, I think threats of violent revolution were not.
Same with protests against the Obama administration, protesting against the government is fine, threatening to attack America is not.
only a liberal idiot, such as the one that created this poster, would consider this man exercising his 1st and 2nd amendment an act of terror.
don’t worry, we won’t resort to violence, we will vote these idiots out in ’10 and ’12. the truly violent and disrespectful ones are the liberals.
There is a difference in owning guns, exercising your second amendment and offensive violence against man. maybe your dad should have explained that to you.
But we will fight and DIE for our liberty, freedom and the constitution if we are forced to. Are you willing to die for your Liberal socialism and facisim?
Liberty or death
Oooh, what a martyr you are.
Yes, the kind that built this country from the ground up.
dead people built this country? OMG america was built by zombies!!!
i honor of our life-impaired comrades, i degree we rename this country: Zombimerica!!
Oooh say can you – BRAINS!! nom nom nom nom
*sings*
We built this country…. bah, bu, bah bu bah
We built this country on human braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaains!!
He’s a bit dramatic, don’t you think?
a touch, yes
It’s flair.
“the truly violent and disrespectful ones are the liberals.”
Ummmm… yeah. Because nothing says hyperaggressive macho bully like a pacifist vegetable-eating Earth-Day-shirt-and-hemp-sandal-wearing feminist. ‘Scuse me, I ‘mean “feminazi,” since there’s an obvious correlation between women’s rights and slaughtering Jews and homosexuals.
*tries and fails to keep a straight face, then dies laughing*
You guys really need to come up with some more believable histrionics, you know.
You talk big from behind your computer, but I’ve got a hunch you wouldn’t die for anything. I’d die for my family. That’s about it.
Ironic how you support try to Constitutional Rights using a quote from a guy who vehemently opposed the ratification of the Constitution of 1787 and in fact fought to oppose it through a series of letters and speeches now summed up as Anti-federalists. Oh and I will fight for my liberal rights under the liberal Constitution of 1787 against people like you who seek to tear down this country and it’s freedoms.
I can think of something you need to grow, and it isn’t values. Go ahead honey and tote the party line a little bit more. If we’re lucky, you’ll get pulled under with the rest of the extremists.
“tote the party line a little more”
Freudian slip much?
Oh, go blow it out your ass.
I just bet if you were asked to die for your liberty, you would probably sit back and let the other guy do it.
Obligatory link
Well, I would and have, but, having had a gun (MP-5) shoved in my face, in a foreign country by their military who were supposedly my ally, I will assure you that I did talk my ass off explaining why it wasn’t a good idea to shoot me.
Bub, name me one self-described liberal who opens fire on museum guards, or policemen, or people in church. Earth Liberation Front whackos and so called ‘anarchists’ don’t count; they only damage property.
*crickets*
Come on, I’m waiting… (taptaptaptap)
*crickets*
I didn’t think so.
Go hop the next flight to the Republic of Minerva and leave us alone.
Personal opinion? Most extremists are the IRL equivalent of trolls. They’re not truly on anyone’s side, they just want attention and will pervert the genuine worthwhile ideals of whatever side they’re supposedly on.
You’re quite correct in noting that liberals shouldn’t be painted with the same brush as ELF’ers. But remember that conservatives shouldn’t be painted with the same brush as schmucks like this one, either.
@ ravez haven’t you learned this is a very liberal leaning website?
i think most things are liberal leaning these days, and i think that’s mainly because the number on the right are slowly creeping more towards the center, either that or bush managed to screw things up so bad even the stoned hippies decided it was time they got of their collective ass.
speaking of which, doesn’t mean it’s so much becoming overall more liberal, just that the “center” has become more left-leaning due either the majority slowly creeping away from one extreme or another or that those who’ve been quiet (like the hippy example) are speaking up.
you’re a minority now, get over it.
Actually, it would appear that only those who can think for themselves are creeping towards the center, on both sides.
The very best thing about Obama? He’s even better than Clinton at bringing out the screaming hysterics in both sides.
Maybe, just maybe, in ten years we’ll look back and thank God for the watershed moments when people got a good look at the real nature of the extremists and decided they wanted someone who would represent them instead.
Count me in.. not that I was ever an extremist right-wing nutjob.
it’s called muslim, idiots
there is no such word as islamic
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:
Islam
One entry found.
Main Entry: Is·lam
Pronunciation: \is-ˈläm, iz-, -ˈlam, ˈis-ˌ, ˈiz-ˌ\
Function: noun
Etymology: Arabic islām submission (to the will of God)
Date: 1817
1 : the religious faith of Muslims including belief in Allah as the sole deity and in Muhammad as his prophet
2 a : the civilization erected upon Islamic faith b : the group of modern nations in which Islam is the dominant religion
— Is·lam·ic \is-ˈlä-mik, iz-, -ˈla-\ adjective
Burn!
Well, obviously the dictionary is wrong! (^_~)
I could understand if someone had a bone to pick with the people who are trying to coin “Islamist” as a new insult, but it’s just silly to claim Islamic isn’t a word.
Your name, it suits you well.
What makes you assume he isn’t a Muslim?
Um…everything he says and does? What makes YOU assume he IS a Muslim? Fox News? Orly Taitz? Glen Beck? Sean Hannity? Rush Limbaugh? Yeah, I thought so.
I’m not positive, but I think he was trying to make the point that the guy holding the sign in the picture could, in fact, be Muslim. Which would hardly preclude him from protesting or exercising his constitutional rights. It’s a valid point — most Muslims in the US look pretty much like the rest of us.
Yeah, and there’s a chance that guy is a woman, but the odds are pretty slim.
Yeah…even slimmer. I just thought he was making a point that we should challenge our assumptions about Muslims, which didn’t really seem to call for the semi-rant (sorry, Ivan) that followed, making me think either I wasn’t interpreting his comment right or that Ivan had misinterpreted it. *shrugs* I’m not saying it’s terribly likely.
I think you hit the nail on the head, but it’s worth note that your explanation makes much more obvious sense than the original question.
There’s probably a greater chance of him shooting you for calling him a Muslim.
he’s a lizard man in disguise!! they’ve returned !!!! AAAHHH!!!! eat your babies – er, i mean save the babies!!!
Who cares if he is, which he isn’t.
You know him? Personally?
Yup.
Going out an a tangent, you’re doin it rite!
funny yes, true yes, real no
Real yes.. already been Googled and confirmed.
This picture was taken at the 9/12 rally at the White House. They were protesting the invasion of Big Government into our freedoms and rights. He was indicating that he wanted things resolved peacefully, but is willing to fight for his rights if necessary. That is not an act of terrorism.
Just curious, how would you define terrorism that excludes people who are willing to use violence (“fight”) to prove their point?
How many rights have lost since Obama took office exactly? Now, compare that to how many we lost under the Bush administration. What did you learn about yourself?
I’m too lazy to read through all the comments, so I’ll just say.. Wasn’t Timothy McVeigh a terrorist?
No, ’cause he was only trying to blow up that nebulous entity known as “the government” that many people think is the source of all evils. It’s not his fault that 168 civilians, including 19 children, got in the way. (/sarcasm)
Thank you for qualifying that.. I was almost headed to google to look up terrorism.
Where have you been? I haven’t seen you much lately.
Certainly NOT outside your house lurking in the bushes. I can’t BELIEVE you would even insinuate that. How rude.
…
I don’t have any bushes. You’ve been stalking the wrong house.
I’M NOT STALKING YOU! Can’t you read? *runs away*
*right into my widespread arms* Ah ha…gotcha!
*wriggles* NOOOOOOOOOOOES! Where is my bitter troll to save me?!
Well that’s one way to get her out of my bushes.
*screams from Charlie’s deathgrip* I knew you were a liar Rando!
*hmmm, what are these bumpy things?*
Gotta love this picture! I sorta agree with this guy, but the sign still sucks. Granted, its technically not terrorism (he didnt technically threaten violence (-,-) but it still makes him look like a moron. As an anti-liberal myself (I’m not republican, I dislike them almost as much as I dislike liberals) its guys with signs like this that make us look like a bunch of rednecks. (I live in San Francisco, go figure)
“Anti-liberal?” You’ve gotta define yourself by what you’re against? How negative of you.
I’m pro-death panels!
I’m pro-H1N1!
im pro-hockey!
I’m pro-knock kneed!
I’m a hockey pro.
I’m pro-amateur!
Apparently Joe Sakic no longer is.
Colorado (go Avs!!) is going to be sooo lame this season without him. He has betrayed our beloved state with his evasive “aging,” whatever that means.
So you’re anti-understanding. Wow… that’s not something you should parade around. “Liberal”, it doesn’t mean what you think it does.
At least you don’t live in Berkeley!
This LOL = not funny (THIS TIME)
That is a THREAT! You are a TERRORIST!
evil doer, if your not with us, your against us. and with them, not us, them and they are evil, and we are not
Finally, something I agree with you on.
at least all the words on his sign are correctly spelled.
that aspect was clearly photoshopped in
SHOPPED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Jesus, I’m gone for two whole days, and some crappy lol like this causes a comment sh1tstorm like this? I remember voting fail for this just for pure unoriginality. There had to be at least 30 lols before it saying almost the exact same thing. WTF?!
Standards, people, standards…
Well, you know the conservitrolls. Give them anything to work with at all, and they’ll manage to offend everyone with a brain who reads their posts.
Conservitroll FTW!
*grunt, grunt*
To me, the libtroll that made this lol to offend the conservatrolls is just sa bad as the conservatroll himself. In the end, a troll is a troll, and has no real ideology. They should remove themselves from the political world and quit pretending to represent the ideologies of rational people. It really is quite a nuisance.
Oh, I get it now!!! It’s because he has a beard!!!!
how is not bringing your gun to a rally “terrorism”?? i fail to see the point here.
what he’s doing at the moment is not terrorism, what he’s implying to do next time is.
It is terrorism to use fear to make people change their actions.
In this case, the man is saying they will come with guns, unless some action is taken.
Taking guns somewhere isn’t terrifying on itself, but the sign makes no sense if he just means he’s going to bring guns next time. Therefore, the guy is implying they will use the guns in some way which will be disturbing to others. (else, why would we care?)
Therefore, he is saying that unless something happens, he will do something people won’t like. And that is a mild form of terrorism, but it IS terrorism.
You’re the one scared of people exercising their 2nd amendment rights, yet he’s the terrorist?
Man this site is filled with irritating a stupid leftists.
No-one’s forcing you to come here at all, never mind read comments.
If you think you have a right to call the LiberLOLs stupid, engage in an ongoing debate and prove that you are actually intelligent!
It’s okay, John. We’re always accepting new members into the Church of Obamunism. Just pledge your life to President Obama and become a lifelong communist and you’ll be as blissfully happy as the rest of us liberals.
/heavy, heavy sarcasm
How can a website be “full” of anything? It’s not a room or a bucket.
I agree with you. I like many of the posts here but I HATE the anti-right ones. I wish there was a difference between the lol-news and lol-politics sections. I also wish the party affiliation filters on this site actually worked.
@ OP
Successful troll is successful.
Am I the only one who noticed that his EMPTY SLEEVES are hanging below the sign. THE GUY HAS NO ARMS.
His hands and arms are hidden behind the sign. What your looking at is the hem of his jacket which is unzipped.
LOL!! Vinnie.. I would love to have him as my lawyer!
So do you know the proper timing or not?
No, because it’s a trick question!
Does the defense’s theory hold water?
No!