Im gonna say it since no one else will.

Jon Stewart accuses Michelle Bachmann of terrorist connections, and of course makes a much better case than she did:

Jon Stewart Slams Bachmann’s Muslim Brotherhood Conspiracy By Creating His Own Conspiracy | Mediaite

Mrs. Weiner (Huma Abedin), the Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton unaware that her mother was reported as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood? Did western media miss what has been REVEALED in several Arab newspapers, which remained SECRET in American government circles?
Weiner's In-Laws and the SECRET Muslim Brotherhood Connections REVEALED
 

Bill Ayers didn't bomb the World Trade Center.
You really need to stop getting your facts from Hate Radio.

The only think Bill Ayers blew up was a statue dedicated to police who killed strikers in 1886 during the Haymarket Riots. While not a good thing to do, the guy was hardly a hardened terrorist. The only people the Weathermen were a danger to were themselves because they were so inept.
The only people more inept was the FBI and their COINTEL program that infiltrated groups like that and tried to encourage them to commit acts of violence, which is why Ayers was never charged with anything.

Clearly, Bachmann's statements were reprehensible... and hopefully the folks in MN will finally give her her walking papers in November.

You're right. It was the Capital Building....still he's a fucking gutless terrorist.

And I concede that Fonda wasn't a terrorist in the true sense of the word. She didn't set off bombs. She just sided with the enemy and caused US soldiers to tortured. Nonetheless, being born in the USA didn't deter her from being an enemy of the USA.

To hell with Jane Fonda.

I don't have any Fondness for Fonda, either. And frankly, the woman pretty much destroyed her own acting career with her advocacy.

(Pssst. Ayers didn't bomb the capital building, either.)

But again, in the context of the time, when the government was making war on its own people because they didn't support a war they had already admitted to themselves was unwinnable, you can kind of understand why some people went to extremes.

Like now is also the time to go extreme?
 
56,000 American dead in Vietnam, 3 million dead Vietnamese and Cambodians. 4 kids shot at Kent state. Dozens of protestors shot in other locations. That's some sick shit. Nixon got a pardon after he resigned in disgrace because someone felt prosecuting a criminal president would be too traumatic.

I'm going to take a bit of a leap here and guess you probably didn't live through those times. I did.

It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. Sorry, just isn't.

So a gross injustice in favor of someone politically opposed to someone else who was the beneficiary of a greater injustice ceases to be an injustice?

MLK's rollin over in his fucking grave listening to some of you lefties.

Dr. King was probably killed by that same government.

Frankly, I'm not seeing the "gross injustice" on giving Ayers a walk, since he personally didn't kill anyone. The only people the Weathermen managed to kill under Ayers leadership were themselves... hardly something to be bragging about.

If Nixon deserved a walk, Ayers deserved a walk. And frankly, you can link a lot of the GOP leadership to Nixon than you can really link Obama to Ayers. Romney's dad worked for Nixon.

Now, I would be remiss to say that Nixon was all bad. Quite the contrary, the guy did a lot of good, too. He improved diplomatic relations with China and Russia. He finally did end the folly of Vietnam. He created OSHA and the EPA. He did a bunch of good things that would probably make him unwelcome in today's GOP.

He also did the whole Watergate thing, which was partially because he didn't do what all his successors did, which is let their loyalists fall on their swords.

Something like obama and bordergate?
 
And what great change is Governor Romney going to install? Basically it will be Bush 43's 3rd term if Romney does win. Been there, done that, seen the failure.

It would be bushs fourth term as Obama has kept many of the policies you guys initially cried about. Now you sing praises for those policies.

I have no interest in speaking with partisans. I am anti dem. Thats all you need to know about my position. That opposition is due to the constant double standards you guys try to impose.

Apparently, that is all anyone needs to know about your position since you're struggling to come up with a way that Governor Romney will be a change agent. Remember, you called Grumps out on him being "more then [than] willing to let things continue the way they are." Hey, come to think of it; you should be opposing your own double standard as well then, right?

Please explain How I am struggling when I do not intend to vote for him.

The only disclaimer I can offer is I will vote for him if Democrats just flat piss me off.

Those chances remain high.
 
56,000 American dead in Vietnam, 3 million dead Vietnamese and Cambodians. 4 kids shot at Kent state. Dozens of protestors shot in other locations. That's some sick shit. Nixon got a pardon after he resigned in disgrace because someone felt prosecuting a criminal president would be too traumatic.

I'm going to take a bit of a leap here and guess you probably didn't live through those times. I did.

It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. Sorry, just isn't.
Your passionate defense for a terrorist is noted. Not at all surprising.

It's you rightwingers who insist crazy people like James Holmes should be able to buy weapons on demand because the Founders gave you the right to overthrow your government.

The old adage, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

I don't think Ayers was either. I think he was the result of a government that couldnt' admit it was making huge mistakes, and was willing to expend the blood of its young people in the process. (Not to mention a lot of Vietnamese who were just wondering why Bhudda was so pissed off at them.)

Then you would have no objections to having more Ayres today?
 
This is maybe a bit off topic from the title of this thread, but I think relevant. Over one million people have been killed in the US alone due to gun violence since the days of MLK.

And it would also not be a wrong statement to say more people have been killed in a car or by a car than have been killed with a gun.
 
This is maybe a bit off topic from the title of this thread, but I think relevant. Over one million people have been killed in the US alone due to gun violence since the days of MLK.
How many gun laws are needed before criminals start obeying them?

GUN_CONTROL.jpg

How many gun laws are needed before criminals start obeying them?
Just one more is all they will need. :badgrin:
 
Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization, so anyone that is a member....is a terrorist.

I'm guessing Bachman has more intel on this subject than the bi-polar dumbfuck that started this thread to get attention.
 
It would be bushs fourth term as Obama has kept many of the policies you guys initially cried about. Now you sing praises for those policies.

I have no interest in speaking with partisans. I am anti dem. Thats all you need to know about my position. That opposition is due to the constant double standards you guys try to impose.

Apparently, that is all anyone needs to know about your position since you're struggling to come up with a way that Governor Romney will be a change agent. Remember, you called Grumps out on him being "more then [than] willing to let things continue the way they are." Hey, come to think of it; you should be opposing your own double standard as well then, right?

Please explain How I am struggling when I do not intend to vote for him.

The only disclaimer I can offer is I will vote for him if Democrats just flat piss me off.

Those chances remain high.

So from the nearly unparalleled angst and pain you express on every thread; we can assume you'll vote for someone who will keep things as they are? Thats fine but don't chastise Grumps for doing the same thing.
 
This is maybe a bit off topic from the title of this thread, but I think relevant. Over one million people have been killed in the US alone due to gun violence since the days of MLK.

That would mean more, if most (if not all) of the victims were unarmed themselves.
 
It's you rightwingers who insist crazy people like James Holmes should be able to buy weapons on demand because the Founders gave you the right to overthrow your government.
How many gun laws are needed before criminals start obeying them?

Prediction: You will not have a rational answer to this question..

It's a stupid question. Most gun deaths are not the result of "hardened criminals".

55% of gun deaths are suicides. Yeah, technically suicide is against the law, but they'd be a lot harder to commit if there wasn't a gun in the house.

Another 5% are accidents and the remaining 40% are homicides. However, very few of those are hardened criminals or even the occassional crazy person shooting people up. Most of them are arguments within families about who got the last donut.

Again, lot easier to reduce those if every asshole in the country didn't have a gun.


The old adage, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

I don't think Ayers was either. I think he was the result of a government that couldnt' admit it was making huge mistakes, and was willing to expend the blood of its young people in the process. (Not to mention a lot of Vietnamese who were just wondering why Bhudda was so pissed off at them.)
So Ayers was a terrorist -- but it was the government's fault.

Your passionate defense for a terrorist is noted. Again.

Never mind the fact he admitted he was guilty. Moron.

He's someone who decided violence was the answer to a problem, which of course, it rarely is.

Violence represents a failure of human beings to solve problems, whether you call those who enact it terrorists or freedom fighters or soldiers.

If Ayers side had won the near civil war we had in the 1960's, they'd have been heroes. If his side had been utterly crushed, they'd have been "terrorists". Instead, we kind of sat down, forced Nixon out, and all gave ourselves a national Time Out on the silliness as we sorted ourselves out in the 1970's.

The main reason you know, stupid people (also known as Teabaggers) give for wanting to keep their guns handy is because they want to reserve the right to overthrow the government. Ayers was excercising a right you seem to think we should have. And at the end of the day, amusingly enough, that government couldn't make a case against him that would hold up in its own courts.

And here's the thing. I'm not calling for the end to gun ownership... although I wouldn't mind crushing the NRA like a bug because of its corrosive effect on our politics.

I'm saying it should be restricted to responsible people... "Well-Regulated" you might say.
 
Last edited:
Something like obama and bordergate?

You mean the fake scandal you guys are making up no one is buying?


Brian Terry is dead. You call that fake?

And how is that a scandal?

We don't evenknow for sure if the gun that killed him was one of the ones involved in a gun purchasing scheme that was probably ill-advised, but certainly not a "scandal".

You jokers (gee, am not going to be able to use that expression anymore) seem to think that it's fine that anyone can buy a gun any time, and 2000 American weapons cross the border every day...

The ATF tried to track a few hundred of them and failed. It's like looking at a stream of shit, picking up one turd and saying, "This turd really pisses me off!"
 
Your passionate defense for a terrorist is noted. Not at all surprising.

It's you rightwingers who insist crazy people like James Holmes should be able to buy weapons on demand because the Founders gave you the right to overthrow your government.

The old adage, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

I don't think Ayers was either. I think he was the result of a government that couldnt' admit it was making huge mistakes, and was willing to expend the blood of its young people in the process. (Not to mention a lot of Vietnamese who were just wondering why Bhudda was so pissed off at them.)

Then you would have no objections to having more Ayres today?

NOt what I said, but frankly, I get bored explaining what I said to you and you still not understanding it... it get's tedious, really.
 
Joe McCarthy was right.

History has shown that he was right far more then he's ever been given credit.

I remember the McCarthy era. My grandfather had a good friend named Louie. Louie was a singer and was scared that McCarthy was going to identify him as a communist and come after him. Grandpa told him he was being silly. There was no reason for McCarthy to identify him as a communist. To which Louie said "I AM a communist".

Joe McCarthy was one of America's greatest heroes.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz
You mean the fake scandal you guys are making up no one is buying?


Brian Terry is dead. You call that fake?

And how is that a scandal?

We don't evenknow for sure if the gun that killed him was one of the ones involved in a gun purchasing scheme that was probably ill-advised, but certainly not a "scandal".

You jokers (gee, am not going to be able to use that expression anymore) seem to think that it's fine that anyone can buy a gun any time, and 2000 American weapons cross the border every day...

The ATF tried to track a few hundred of them and failed. It's like looking at a stream of shit, picking up one turd and saying, "This turd really pisses me off!"


We do know that some of the guns confiscated in the skirmish that killed Terry were bought through F&F. And we know that hundreds and thousands of weapons walked across the border without the knowledge and consent of the Mexican gov't. Sounds like a scandal to me.

I don't think most of us believe anyone can buy a gun any time or anywhere. And we sure as hell don't think it's okay for 2000 weapons to cross the border every day, where do you come up with this shit?

F&F was a dumbass program that was poorly designed and even more poorly executed. People shoulda been fired or arrested. Instead they covered it up and stonewalled, as per usual.
 
This is maybe a bit off topic from the title of this thread, but I think relevant. Over one million people have been killed in the US alone due to gun violence since the days of MLK.
How many gun laws are needed before criminals start obeying them?

GUN_CONTROL.jpg

That is the thing. Another typical Democratic plan.

1) Let's have a plan which gun laws are devastating to honest citizens regarding their ability to get a job but is a slap on the wrist to someone with a record the length of their arm.

2) Every time it's proven to be a stupid idea, like one armed person killing dozens of unarmed people, declare the problem is we didn't go far enough. Then repeat step 1 even moreso to further ensure that only criminals have guns.

It's their solution to education, no matter how expensive and crappy our system is, the problem is we didn't spend enough on it. No matter how well the "war on poverty" doesn't work after trillions wasted, declare we didn't give enough away. One size fits all denial.
Well said.

If you need the lessons of history utterly ignored, get a liberal.
 
This is maybe a bit off topic from the title of this thread, but I think relevant. Over one million people have been killed in the US alone due to gun violence since the days of MLK.
How many gun laws are needed before criminals start obeying them?

GUN_CONTROL.jpg

How many gun laws are needed before criminals start obeying them?
Just one more is all they will need. :badgrin:
So they keep saying.

But they lie.
 

Forum List

Back
Top