How is there not a single conspiracy theory about the White House petitions website? It seems pretty obvious — you have to put in your information to sign, obviously, and theysayit's going onto a fancy direct-democracy petition thing, but in fact it is going into a government database developed especially to keep track of the nation's stupidest people with Internet connections.
Moral of the story: don&#039;t order <a href="http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Operation_Blue_Star" target="_blank">shit like this</a> against your own people as the culmination of <a href="http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indira_Gandhi#Verdict_on_electoral_malpractice" target="_blank">years of corruption</a>.
Not that any right wing nut job would show up and try to shoot them after being inspired by today&#039;s NRA ad, encouraging nut jobs to be outraged at Obama&#039;s children.
I do believe that Jimmy Treacher should get a nice interview with some Secret Service personnel, to explain the finer points of requesting potential harm to come to the President and Vice President of the United States.
Is that not what you are advocating, Jimmy? Well, I&#039;m sure you are smart enough to clear any of their misconceptions right up!
Meh - Treacher&#039;s only about a six on the guntard stupidity scale. It&#039;s taken a few weeks for one man to reach the pinnacle. <i>Ladies and gentlemen, may I present: </i> <a href="http:\/\/www.rawstory.com\/rs\/2013\/01\/09\/florida-professor-defends-theory-that-newtown-shootings-never-happened\/" target="_blank">the perfect ten.</a>
Now if you&#039;ll excuse me, I have some heavy drinking to attend to.
Let&#039;s be clear on this. Of the 44 US Presidents, 4 have been assassinated, all of them with guns, for a murder rate of 9,091 per 100,000, compared to the most recent national rate of 4.8 per 100,000.
Having a gun in your household increases your chances of being a victim of homicide about 3-fold. Being President increases it about 2,000-fold.
What&#039;s more, the <em>reason</em> that you&#039;re more likely to be killed if your household has a gun is that is it more likely that domestic violence will escalate to homicide if your spouse has easy access to the one widely available tool specifically designed for the purpose of killing. There is also the possibility of a home invader getting to your gun before you can, and using it against you. These causative mechanisms quite obviously don&#039;t exist when the only weapons in the building are in the possession of the Secret Service.
<i>So, we can refine the argument thusly: Good guys with guns should protect important people from bad guys with guns. But your kids don&rsquo;t deserve such protection, because they&rsquo;re not as important. You peasants can go die already. In addition, shut up.</i>
Perhaps we should just start pointing out that it&#039;s perfectly legal for liberals, communists, or even the blahs to own as many guns as they want. It just might juke these morons out long enough to repeal the second.
Moral of the story: don&#039;t order <a href="http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Operation_Blue_Star" target="_blank">shit like this</a> against your own people as the culmination of <a href="http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Indira_Gandhi#Verdict_on_electoral_malpractice" target="_blank">years of corruption</a>.
Not that any right wing nut job would show up and try to shoot them after being inspired by today&#039;s NRA ad, encouraging nut jobs to be outraged at Obama&#039;s children.
I believe the answer to your questions is near.
I do believe that Jimmy Treacher should get a nice interview with some Secret Service personnel, to explain the finer points of requesting potential harm to come to the President and Vice President of the United States.
Is that not what you are advocating, Jimmy? Well, I&#039;m sure you are smart enough to clear any of their misconceptions right up!
i for one am glad our president is an elitist.
Meh - Treacher&#039;s only about a six on the guntard stupidity scale. It&#039;s taken a few weeks for one man to reach the pinnacle. <i>Ladies and gentlemen, may I present: </i> <a href="http:\/\/www.rawstory.com\/rs\/2013\/01\/09\/florida-professor-defends-theory-that-newtown-shootings-never-happened\/" target="_blank">the perfect ten.</a>
Now if you&#039;ll excuse me, I have some heavy drinking to attend to.
Right-side recursion never ends well.
Let&#039;s be clear on this. Of the 44 US Presidents, 4 have been assassinated, all of them with guns, for a murder rate of 9,091 per 100,000, compared to the most recent national rate of 4.8 per 100,000.
Having a gun in your household increases your chances of being a victim of homicide about 3-fold. Being President increases it about 2,000-fold.
What&#039;s more, the <em>reason</em> that you&#039;re more likely to be killed if your household has a gun is that is it more likely that domestic violence will escalate to homicide if your spouse has easy access to the one widely available tool specifically designed for the purpose of killing. There is also the possibility of a home invader getting to your gun before you can, and using it against you. These causative mechanisms quite obviously don&#039;t exist when the only weapons in the building are in the possession of the Secret Service.
Only when their wife is particularly grumpy.
Shouldn&#039;t a State Department vehicle be along any minute now?
But their straw man is so much easier to shred than Barack on account of his Secret Service protection.
Even the Secret Service agents?
Samuel Johnson approves.
Interior seems more likely, or Homeland Security. Not State.
<i>So, we can refine the argument thusly: Good guys with guns should protect important people from bad guys with guns. But your kids don&rsquo;t deserve such protection, because they&rsquo;re not as important. You peasants can go die already. In addition, shut up.</i>
Who wrote this sketch? It&#039;s brilliant!
Perhaps we should just start pointing out that it&#039;s perfectly legal for liberals, communists, or even the blahs to own as many guns as they want. It just might juke these morons out long enough to repeal the second.