It's only irony if you accept their cause is just. I don't.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
When the militiamen first seized the refuge, and did NOT get their guts stomped out, I made a vow similar to Newman's. It starts at about 0:48.
What's funny is they brought lots of guns and ammo but forgot food. In the middle of nowhere. In the depths of winter. Militiamen aren't exactly bright. They appealed to the INTERNET for help and got exactly what you'd expect. Lots of dildos, a 55-gallon tub of lube, and phallic-shaped gummy candy.
What's funny is they brought lots of guns and ammo but forgot food. In the middle of nowhere. In the depths of winter. Militiamen aren't exactly bright. They appealed to the INTERNET for help and got exactly what you'd expect. Lots of dildos, a 55-gallon tub of lube, and phallic-shaped gummy candy.
Last edited:
It's because they expected there to be a fire fight within hours and to ether be dead, in prison, or on the frontlines of the Second American Revolution. Except they forgot they were white so the government just opted to try and starve them out (having apparently gotten a clue since WACO and Ruby Ridge). They should have brought cameras and live streamed the entire thing too but they didn't think about that ether.
Man, the Republican candidates for the next president might be the most loathsome group ever. Ted Cruz, on top of being just a disgusting mess of a politician, might have the most punchable face ever. Trump can't even handle a fucking Fox news mediator but at least he's up front with what a piece of shit he is.
At least the Democrats have Bernie, who wants to make things better.
At least the Democrats have Bernie, who wants to make things better.
It really has been refreshing to see a politician with some bonafide authenticity for once. It may never happen again in our lifetime.
It was a general thing, he's just gross.
GasBandit
Staff member
See, and here I think he's the closest thing the Republicans have to someone I might could vote for.
I'm still voting for Gary Johnson, but if someone had a gun to my head and said "pick a republican" it'd be Cruz.
GasBandit
Staff member
Democrats want crime victims to be able to sue gun manufacturers/sellers.
The example given by the bill's sponsor is idiotic.
The example given by the bill's sponsor is idiotic.
Uh, the "dog owner" in this metaphor would be the gun owner, not the manufacturer. If a dog bites you, you don't sue the pet store from which the puppy was bought 5 years ago, or the breeder who sold it to the pet store. The whole thing is asinine. It's yet another thinly veiled attack on second amendment rights.
You wouldn't be, but if you set traps in your house, you would be liable for that.
GasBandit
Staff member
Heh, that's a whole 'nuther discussion though. This bill is explicitly about guns used in the commission of a crime, specifically described by the supporters as being about mass shootings in particular. IE, Adam Lanza killed his mother and himself, "escaping justice," so nine Sandy Hook families are suing Bushmaster because an XM15-E2S (AR-15) was used in the shooting.[DOUBLEPOST=1454374049,1454373911][/DOUBLEPOST]
Could one argue that a guard dog that isn't constantly barking (and has no "Beware of Dog" signs) constitutes a trap, I wonder?
This would be Castle Doctrine: you have the right to defend your home from people who have entered without permission (and who don't a legal reason to be there) so it wouldn't matter.
Really, this is kind of pointless... the only way this would work is if you made gun sellers be licensed by the companies they sell guns for, making them defacto employees of those companies. THEN you could argue liability. But without that, there is no chain connecting the company unless it's for a gun they directly sold (and most STILL require it be sold through a third party seller). Really, unless you can prove the gun seller knowingly sold the weapon to someone they thought to be mentally/morally unstable I wouldn't even say it's their fault ether.
Interestingly, It's DEAD close with Hillary and Bernine. Like, less than a full percentage.
Zappit
Staff member
It'll be a split of delegates for Clinton and Sanders. Sanders takes New Hampshire, and then Clinton takes South Carolina. I see Hillary taking the mom this time around, and frankly, I hope so. The Republicans are going to pull out every vile, loathsome trick in their books, and I don't see Bernie withstanding it. Clinton, at least, has dealt with their shit for decades, and is still standing tall.
GasBandit
Staff member
The way I see it, if Clinton gets indicted, it'll probably go Sanders. If not, Clinton's got too vast a support network in the media and political machines to lose.
Also, bear in mind, in 2012, Santorum took Iowa in the caucus (barely over Romney), and in 2008 Huckabee won it. So... it's not necessarily indicative of the final winner.
Zappit
Staff member
She won't get indicted. The Judiciary committee, led by a Republican, announces she "may have violated the law" with her e-mails three days before the primary? This coming after Kevin McCarthy and Richard Hanna admitted the Benghazi panel was designed to hurt her election chances?
The e-mails are a political Deflategate.
The e-mails are a political Deflategate.
GasBandit
Staff member
The FBI found hundreds of e-mails classified so highly that not even the senate panel is cleared to read them. They recommended an indictment. But Hillary doesn't get indicted by the FBI - that's on the DOJ, which means Loretta Lynch would have to give it the go ahead, and she won't so much as wipe her... nose... without Obama's say so. So it really boils down to if Obama wants her indicted or not. There's no love lost between the two of them, but that doesn't mean he wants yet another scandal for something that happened on his watch.
So you may be right. Despite the fact that the Clinton's not being in prison is one of the greater indicators of just how flawed and useless our law system is, it's fairly likely she'll walk away again, and go on to continue being bought by foreign powers, lying, cheating, stealing, and enabling the antics of a rapist Bill as bad as Cosby in every way. But hey, "don't we want a woman to be president?!"
GasBandit
Staff member
One thing is for certain, if Trump doesn't win the republican nomination, he definitely will go independent, and will siphon off enough votes to deliver the election straight to the democrats, just like Perot did in '92. Wouldn't it be interesting if that was his game the whole time...
In your case, nothing short of a nuclear strike or another Nixon-McGovern race will keep California from going to the Democrats anyway.
Zappit
Staff member
But Bill's not the one running, is he? The only accused rapist actually running is Trump. (ex wife accused him) Where's the outcry about that?
And yeah, Obama won't give the go ahead on any kind of indictment for a very good reason. If Hillary doesn't get in, the Affordable Care Act is done. The Republicans will repeal it practically first day, and Bernie is so delusional he actually thinks he can scrap it and replace it with a single-payer system. Forget how hard it was to pass the compromise bill the first time around. Single-payer is dead in the water.
But if you prefer a candidate loathed by all his peers in the Senate, carries a well-deserved reputation for saying (lying, especially) and doing anything it takes to get ahead at everyone else's expense, and preferred to fight to put a man in prison for 16 years instead of the maximum of two years rather than admit a mistake, that's none of my business...
As for that a Trump theory, Gas, I've thought that, too. He was a Democrat for a long time, and the thing' she's saying are just so friggin' crazy. If he runs independent, it's over for the Republicans in 2016. The blame game would go supernova. It would create one hell of a rift between the mainstream GOP and the Tea Party, and could separate them for good, which could split the conservative voter base for many years to come.
If that's the plan, Trump's the most Machiavellian politician in American history. But I just can't give him that much credit.
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
Hey, I'm the last person to stick up for Trump. Roast him in the fires of perdition, I'll get the marshmallows. However, that doesn't change that Hillary abetted and covered for Bill's sexual assaults (and Hillary has said multiple times that every rape victim must be believed, end of statement).
I think you overestimate the resolve of the republican establishment. No republican will actually repeal the ACA - it'd be political suicide. The media would crucify them day in and day out. The only reason we got votes to repeal was because they knew Obama would veto it - it was pure political posturing. Single payer is inevitable at this point.
I actually consider Cruz's being loathed by the likes of Mitch McConnell and the other establishment "country club" republicans to be one of his most positive aspects. I was clapping through every minute of that admittedly half-assed government shutdown (70% of the government still continued on as normal, so was it really a shutdown?). My dream candidate would dismantle Washington, office by office, bleed it dry, and let the Potomac run green with politician lizard-blood. I know it will never happen, but it's why I have a hard time speaking as harshly about Cruz as I do most republicans: he's clearly not there to play ball with the other kids.But if you prefer a candidate loathed by all his peers in the Senate, carries a well-deserved reputation for saying (lying, especially) and doing anything it takes to get ahead at everyone else's expense, and preferred to fight to put a man in prison for 16 years instead of the maximum of two years rather than admit a mistake, that's none of my business...
Single Payer was inevitable the moment it became impossible for chronic patients to get ANY sort of insurance and it became impossible for them to pay for treatment without it. If anyone is to blame for it happening, it's the insurance and medical care/research industries, who were in a constant arms race to get the money they were directly taking from each other's pockets.
Regardless, it's going to happen. Probably not any time SOON but within a few decades.
It really depends on how vengeful he wants to be... or what he gets promised for staying out of it. There is just too much on the line for the Republicans not to give him what he wants in exchange for dropping out completely at this point. I wonder just how blatant it's going to be... but I'm all for Trump wasting his cash out of spite if he wants to.
As an outsider...Trump losing is a Good Thing, no matter where it leads. At the very least maybe now some of the other candidates might get some attention. Hillary vs Sanders looks and sounds ever more like one big underdog-vs-corrupt-system story...Hillary wins with a tiny margin because she just happens to come out on top in a coin toss six times? Really? Anyway, Trump vs Cruz vs Rubio vs Sanders vs Clinton is at least more interesting. It's also one of those cases where the difference in types of democracy goes to show - the outcome would be very different if people had to go and vote for one between those five vs only between the top candidate of each party. Also, mandatory voting. Also, run-off voting. And so on. Oh well. Lots of time to go ,we'll see where we end up.
Trump has been ranting today about how he didn't put a lot of effort into Iowa, and he's honored he still came in second. Iowa doesn't mean much anyways, because they split their delegates and it's not all or nothing, so it's not even a blip in the Republican primary, considering the low amount of delegates everyone won.