PUMA just got Pwnd
You’d have to be a braindead fool or a stone cold racists motherf*cker to call yourself a Democrat and say you are going to vote for McCain after tonight.
I can sleep easy.
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
But Dave Burris is not sleeping easy. Poor Davey.
Tomorrow you’re certain to see on TV that ONE
Republican OperativeHillary supporter say they’re voting for McCain!Phils game is nuts!
Reporter: Are you a racists motherfucker or a braindead fool?
Hillary Supporter: A little of both to be honest.
Re: Phills I don’t have comcast.
On Alegre’s blog, the front-page liveblogger had this reaction to one of her attacks on Mccain:
“Now she is lying about McCain”.
I am not joking. Go check it if you have the stomach.
I guess that clears up any ambiguity as to where their real hearts lie. They hate Obama for a reason.
I guess we will be left to wonder why they feel so strongly about him …
Came back from 7-0 against the Mets. 7-7 bottom of the 12th.
Booocannnon is such a f’ing wanker.
“They hate Obama for a reason.”
I hate him because he’s a diehard ,far-left, anti-gun socialist and a narcissist. Of course if I don’t support him I’m immediately labeled “racist” when race has nothing whatsoever to do with my disdain towards him.
No one will accuse you of being a racist… you are just a bore…
Why would you call him a narcissist, mike?
Mike why is it always guns with you. You must be one of those guys that always worry about the size of their penis.
Good god, y’all. One post from mike w and three of you rise to the bait.
: shakes head :
Hillary’s speech was great. She did what she needed to do – speak directly to her supporters. I can’t imagine there are any fence sitters left, and those that will still vote for McCain after last night were ALWAYS going to vote for McCain and NEVER supported Hillary.
Penis jokes again. You’re a sad little man TT.
And Nemski, who said anything about bait. That’s why I hate him, and they’re all perfectly valid reasons for disliking a candidate.
TT, why is it always penises with you? You must be one of those…….
Pandora, you have no idea of the hate and hurt Hillary’s bunch feel. They want Obama punished, not just defeated. You overestimate the appeal of “unity”. Were you born a woman?
“Unity” is BS feel good rhetoric just like “hope” & “Change”
Especially considering Obama isn’t exactly a uniter.
Truth Teller,
Mike W doesn’t even know what PUMA is, the post dies not seem to address him, and yet he is commenting on this thread like the retard that he is.
I’d suggest you just ignore his stupid ass non-sequitur comments in the future.
Funny, calling my comments “stupid ass” coming from a guy calling me a retard and in response to a guy talking about penises…….. If that’s not the pot calling the kettle black I don’t know what is.
Whyizzzit you democRATS always think you’re the smartest in the room?
PUMA= Party Unity My Ass
BTWD (By the way, dipshit), everyone loves watching Mike W. run the tables here. When you banned him, it was like admitting your balls had dried up.
Who says they had any balls to begin with?
“democRATS ” clever.
The wingnuts are in full freak out I see. I feel for you guys. I really do.
Got your purple cloak yet?
Oh C’mon jason. You guys calll republican “rethugs” constantly and accuse them of going around killing liberals. Who are the wingnuts again?
Funny watching the ‘literalists” getting all worked up….
Don’t be disingenuous, Mike and Frau, you know why TT brought up dicks….to belittle you, nothing more, nothing less.
And Frau, you’re way too clever!
Do you touch yourself while you type?
Von – I know exactly why TT brought up penises…. because he has nothing else worth saying.
it was his way of saying you have a Napoleonic complex….not saying that I agree.
Except that it makes NO sense whatsoever and is simply the standard shit put out by immature anti-gun folks when they have nothing intelligent to say.
Okay, back to the subject of this post because this is well… boring.
Will the media drop the Clinton/Obama feud story after Bill’s speech tonight? Granted, that may depend on what Bill says, but suppose his speech is at the same level as HRC’s. Will the MSM let it go?
Here’s the issue, there are a number of McCain supporters that have decided to gin up this whole Hillary or McCain thing and they have become indistinguishable from real Hillary supporters.
The problem is that Hillary pulled from the center, unlike Howard Dean. Dean’s supporters had no inclination to vote for Bush once Dean was gone. Sure they were bitter, but they sucked it up and voted for a guy that was a milquetoast candidate.
This time the tables are turned within the party. I happen to think that the center will tack toward Obama, but I’m not taking it for granted.
Pandora – No, I doubt they will. If the MSM has something they think they can run with they’ll push it as far as they can.
MSM – Must. Sell. Soap.
VC, that’s what worries me.
LG, from your keyboard to the voting booth!
Mike W may be the subject of some canned comments but sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.
Obama is the predictable gun-grabber/thug-hugger candidate who has lost a long string of national elections.
While Obama has long been a bit of a political pansy when it comes to controversial issues, he cannot hide from his rather slim legislative record. When a travesty of Cook County “law enforcement” was brought to bear against a citizen who dared shoot a career thug who had burglarized his home two nights in a row, the State Legislature passed a reform measure to right this wrong. Obama voted against the measure but it did passed. Governor Blago issued a veto and Obama voted against the override. So Obama is against the right of self defense. That obviously puts him on the side of thugs.
Obama and Biden are both birds of a feather in this respect.
As far as Obama is concerned you have no right to self-defense (even in your own home) unless you’re an agent of the State.
It’s a typical attitude among anti gun liberals who believe self-defense is wrong regardless of the circumstances. In their minds, the only legitimate actions are those carried out by the state/establishment and its actors. The State can have a monopoly on force and punishment, but individuals can’t be entrusted to take action on their own behalf. If an authorized agent of the state (I.E. cop) uses force in self-defense that’s perfectly acceptable, because he/she is no more than an extension of the State.
But god forbid Illinois citizens be able to defend themselves.
Let’s try this again… the post is about PUMA.
I have MSNBC on as I paint the master bedroom. They are all about Bill Clinton and his speech.
There was also a story (I’m looking for it) that has a MD delegate saying that if Clinton stops the roll call vote she’s considering voting for McCain. Aren’t delegates supposed to be party loyalist?
Who says anyone has to be blindly loyal to a particular party?
Art – I’ll gladly call a spade a spade. Obama & Biden are enthusiastic gun-grabbers and always have been.
Umm… delegates become delegates because of party loyalty.
Yes, but if someone / something alienates them from the party there’s nothing inherently wrong with them deciding to support the other candidate, free choice and all.
Your story, Art, neglects to inform the reader that the reason Obama voted against (which was never made clear) was the procedure of gun purchases.
Obama was for the law as it was, you needed proper ID to purchase the gun, no matter what the situation.
So, it doesn’t say at all that Obama’s against the right of self-defense, it just says that Art is against the rule of law when it suits him or he has poor reading comp skilz. 😛
People have a right to defend their homes, whether they have a government-issued permit or not.
True, but laws are laws. You break them; you open yourself to the consequences.
I’m not saying it’s right, but Art was misrepresenting the facts and reasons of the case.
I haven’t read the case so I can’t speak on it either way.
That said, Obama is a damn hypocrite when it comes to ID. He has no problem with requiring not just a DL, but a gov. issued FOID card for simple firearms purchases, but thinks it’s unconstitutional to require voters to show ANY kind of ID at the polls.
Given the history of voter disenfranchisement in this country, I cannot blame him.
Even though it’s about IDs, the situations cannot be any more different.
So you don’t think people should have to show ID to vote?
I’d say it’s absolutely applicable given the racist history of both gun laws and laws aimed at disenfranchising black voters.
Not if they have to pay for the ID.
So the .Gov should pay for ID’s? How come I have to pay for each and every background check when I buy a firearm then? And I have to pay hundreds of dollars for a CCW permit.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania said
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.”
Requiring some form of ID to vote makes sense, and the ID itself is not primarily for that purpose (it’s a driver’s license) Firearms permits on the other hand are expensive and are specifically a charge for the enjoyment of a Consitutionally protected right.
The state does have to know if those voting are actually residents of said state right?
If you require an ID to VOTE it must be FREE. Seems pretty basic to me.
Shouldn’t that then apply to other Constitutional rights Pandora? You can’t pick & choose.
Hell, I had to go the DMV and pay for a 2nd state-ID on top of my DL before buying my first firearm, since I’m required to show two forms of official government ID. I also pay a transfer fee to the dealer, part of which covers the cost of the required Federal background check.
By your own criteria shouldn’t the government pay for both forms of ID required AND the cost associated with the background check they’ve required me to undergo?
Hell, I had to go the DMV and pay for a 2nd state-ID on top of my DL before buying my first firearm, since I’m required to show two forms of official government ID.
Call the Wahhhmbulance for Mikey.
Look, in addition to showing ID to demonstrate you are who you claim–you really ought to demonstrate that you can actually operate and maintain a weapon.
But you have the right to bear arms, and that’s not necessarily just firearms.
You can buy a taser, for instance. Or a common 18th century weapon, a sword.
And yes, I know it’s a little parsing, but to require an ID for voting eliminates the entire possibility of voting without tax….while you can have an arm, maybe not a firearm, and not pay a ‘tax’.
Ah, so in additon to requiring the equivalent of a poll tax on a Constitutional Right I should also have to submit to what amounts to a literacy test?
BTW – sadly in some states (CA) you actually are subjected to a proficiency test in order to buy a firearm.
You’d think of all people liberals would be against poll taxes and literacy tests as conditions for exercizing constitutionally protected rights.
I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy of taking such a position on voting but not on other rights.
Back to #1, I sleep fine. McCain is tied with Obama in a race he has no business competing in, and the DNC is blowing their chance to speak to America.
Ah, so in additon to requiring the equivalent of a poll tax on a Constitutional Right I should also have to submit to what amounts to a literacy test?
Basically, Mikey’s position is that anyone should be able to buy and own any firearm without knowing which end is which.
Besides, Fat Tony Scalia says you don’t have a right to vote, anyway.
“But you have the right to bear arms, and that’s not necessarily just firearms”
Correct, but it sure as hell includes firearms. By your logic it’d be perfectly acceptable for the government to require a fee and government issued permit for me to buy a computer so long as such a fee wasn’t required to purchase other means by which free speech can be disseminated, like a newspaper or loudspeaker.
#46 Mike W: “Shouldn’t that (the right to vote for free) then apply to other Constitutional rights Pandora? You can’t pick & choose.”
Why can’t you pick and choose how Americans are able to exercise their Constitution-derived rights? The rights in the Constitution are quite varied–the right to vote, the right to assemble, the right to free speech, the right to run for President, to right to a trial by a jury of your peers, and the right to possess, transport, and sell alcohol.
It’s unrealistic to suggest that all Constitutional rights should be administered identically.
I don’t think that analogy works, Mike, since you’re referring to tools or possible applicators of rights.
But I understand your frustration on the matter.
So essentially what you’re saying is
Given what amount to identical restrictions on two different Constitutional rights you see no problem considering those restrictions Constitutional for one right but not for another, for no reason other than that you like one right and don’t like the other?
The moment you require fees & government licenses to exercise Constitutional rights they are no longer “rights.”
Von – RE 54 – Can the same not be said for the 1st Amendment? We don’t require fees and licenses for TV’s, Computers, or internet. Would it be acceptable to require fees & licenses for ownership of certain mediums / tools of free speech so long as they are not required to exercise free speech through other mediums?
That’s certainly “tools / applicators of rights” is it not?
My point is that those things, or parts of, have to be purchased first.
Interesting question: What would you have to do if you made a gun by hand?
Assorted Dipshittery:
“Dean’s supporters had no inclination to vote for Bush once Dean was gone. Sure they were bitter, but they sucked it up and voted for a guy that was a milquetoast candidate.”
Does that make BO the burnt toast candidate??
“Aren’t delegates supposed to be party loyalist?….delegates become delegates because of party loyalty.”
Umm….once upon a time before the internet granted f.ckwads like yourself a hint of artificial relevance, delegates came to the convention to CHOOSE, not to rubber stamp the MSM humjob recipient.
Wow! You can sense the rage!
Keep ’em cumming Blau!
No rage.
Just a touch of mean.
And a teaspoon of evil.
Your mother must be proud.
I am but a shadow!!!
And logic and reason are the light. 😀
In contrast to your blinding idiocy…..
That’s rather presumptuous of you….and if so, it doesn’t make you right….
No, no, no…..I am, most assuredly, “right”
nice pun
See, J, someone appreciates me.
It is a crazy old world.
“My point is that those things, or parts of, have to be purchased first.”
Arent those things I mentioned in #57 also tools/applicators of rights that must be purchased 1st? If you deny access to them are you not infringing upon 1st Amendment rights?
“But you have the right to bear arms, and that’s not necessarily just firearms.
You can buy a taser, for instance. Or a common 18th century weapon, a sword.”
Now that’s just dumb Von. When the founders wrote the word “arms” into the 2A you don’t think personally owned FIREARMS were the primary “arms” they were referring to? The militia acts of the day (1792?) Required that citizens appear bearing their privately owned musket, pistol, and ammo.
Although not the only weapons protected by the Amendment, firearms are the primary “arms” referred to and you know it.
When they referred to “freedom of speech” do you think they only meant spoken and not written speech, or that if the government banned written speech there would be no infringement because they still allowed spoken speech?