Contributors

Saturday, April 06, 2013

File Under: Who the FUCK Cares?

If there is one thing that really drives me nuts about liberals, it's their PC bullshit. I haven't had to put up with much of it of late because my various circles are all very laid back. Occasionally, though,  if I'm over at the U for some reason, I'll make a comment about porn and the people there will be up my ass with a tweezers in less than a second.

"Don't you know that porn subjugates women?" they ask.

"Considering that women are the primary owners now of the porn industry, I'd say that's incorrect," I reply. I then add in examples from all the women I know that love porn and then the mouth foaming really begins. Fortunately, this is really the most I have to deal with it and that suits me just fine....that is, until, last week.

What a giant pile of horse manure. More importantly, who the FUCK cares? He called one of his long time friends good looking. Well, guess what? She is good looking. And so is he. In fact, she's fucking hot!! How's that, jack wagons? She is a fantastic ass and is very shagable, to channel my inner Austin Powers. But I guess we aren't allowed to say or even think such things because that leads to the raping and subjugation of women.

Who are these "critics" that forced him to apologize? If anyone knows, I'd appreciate a link so I can give them a piece of my mind. The extent to which things get exaggerated in this country boggles my mind. I thought we had come out of our repression about sex and were a much more open society where you can say things like, "Hey, she's a dime!"

More importantly, given all the misery in the world, don't we need all the compliments and positivity we can get?

41 comments:

Juris Imprudent said...

Lie down with the dogs of sensitivity and you wonder that the fleas make you itch?

Juris Imprudent said...

Actually if Obama really felt a need to apologize it should have been for lying about machine guns in the recent shootings.

Mark Ward said...

Machine guns? What are you talking about?

Anonymous said...

I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon -- by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/04/04/remarks-president-dccc-event-san-francisco-ca

Mark Ward said...

The story has changed many times as to what Lanza used. First, it was the Bushmaster. Then it wasn't. Then it was again. Then it wasn't. Now it is again. Isn't it possible to after market the Bushmaster and make it fully automatic? Odds are, though, that he made a mistake. I doubt he was lying intentionally but, then again, I don't live inside of a bubble:)

Juris Imprudent said...

I doubt he was lying intentionally

Right. That's why he backed up from correctly saying "semi-automatic" - it was all unintentional.

What a maroon.

Larry said...

Okay, Mark, if he's not deliberately lying, then he's a fucking ignoramus on the subject and has as much standing to be advising and recommending courses of action to Congress and the American public as his frickin' dog does. In either case, he ought to just STFU until he has some understanding. That is the Way of Wisdom, so of course, Il Dufe won't do that. He'll double down just like you do when you get caught out saying something outrageously wrong and stupid.

Mark Ward said...

he ought to just STFU until he has some understanding.

Ah, yes, the "you don't know what you are talking about in regards to _____" meme. Funny, how that covers every subject and is the case with every liberal. After I run that through the bubble translator it comes out as this

Holy Fuck! They might actually solve a problem and do a better job than we will. WTF will we do then?!? No one will listen to us anymore!! Quick, to the argument winning/fear-shit your pants machine to undo whatever progress they might make. We must not be irrelevant!

Juris Imprudent said...

Funny, how that covers every subject and is the case with every liberal.

Funny, but I thought you used it too when speaking about Republicans and their ignorance of science.

I applaud any politician that can to shut his or her mouth to learn something relevant to what they are about to legislate on. Tis a rare thing indeed.

Anonymous said...

Ah, yes, the "you don't know what you are talking about in regards to _____"

Holy fucking crap Mark, is there no end to your cock-sucking for Obama?

You, yes YOU just said he didn't lie intentionally - that he probably made a mistake.

Well, let's assume that for a minute.

If he did make a mistake it COULD NOT have been an unintentional slip of terminology - because HE SPECIFIED between semi-automatic and full-automatic - in the SAME GOD DAMNED SENTENCE.

That means if he made a mistake it is a mistake of COMPLETE GOD DAMNED IGNORANCE.

Which for fucks sakes does in whatever way you want to spin it mean that HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK HE IS TALKING ABOUT.

Which brings us back to the sentiment of some IGNORANT ASSHOLE trying to pass laws about something that HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT.

The Bubba T said...

Bloggers are just like boogers, you can pick them, flick them, and eat them. Mark has you guys so worked up its great. The fear that lives in you guys is just nuts. Seek help, plant a tree, and do something positive for society. Self-centered pricks.

Mark, it does matter because he is the leader of the free world. He was not out for drinks with his buddies. Keep it classy San Diego.

Anonymous said...

The fear that lives in you guys is just nuts.

Oh? Fear of????? Fear of Obama going after guns? That Mark said FOR YEARS wasn't going to happen and that the right was paranoid to think so - but now it's just plain reality? That fear? Doesn't sound so nuts now does it?


Seek help, plant a tree, and do something positive for society

How about fuck off asshole - you don't know jack shit about me or what I do with the other 95% of my day.

Self-centered pricks.

Self-righteous jerk.

Mark Ward said...

Nice point, Bubba. The difference is that I realize that, as a blogger, I am a booger and have no illusions that I'm doing anything remotely significant here. I'm just not that full of myself.

Mark Ward said...

Doesn't sound so nuts now does it?

He hasn't taken away any of your guns. He will not take away any of your guns. Two very simple facts.

Juris Imprudent said...

He hasn't taken away any of your guns. He will not take away any of your guns.

Is Obama not campaigning to ban "assault weapons"?

Mark Ward said...

We're not talking about what might happen. We're talking about what has happened and what will happen. A new AWB will not happen.

Yet, let's suppose that it did, for some reason. You would not have your guns taken away. We had a ban for 10 years in this country and you guys did just fine. You're right to bear arms was not restricted. As GD often notes, even your right to own and carry fully automatic weapons isn't even infringed today. So, your cries of mass confiscation are nutballish moonbattery.

10:52 AM

The Bubba T said...

Mark thats correct. It's the typical white male fear thing. I swear is must be penis envy.

Mark Ward said...

Well, we're both white and not afraid of anything like this. I keep coming back to that ol' amygdala thing. I think they are just wired differently.

Anonymous said...

right to own and carry fully automatic weapons isn't even infringed today

You have a strained relationship with the English language Mark.


infringe

verb (used without object)
2.
to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.



If a law were passed that said no new bibles could be printed and possession of any existing bibles required payment of a tax, passing a background check and permanent registration of that bible - I could correct your mistake if you said citizens cannot possess a bible. But THAT IS NOT the same thing as saying the right to free speech has not been infringed by the passage of that law.

Anonymous said...

He hasn't taken away any of your guns. He will not take away any of your guns. Two very simple facts.

Why? Why hasn't and why will he not? Because that IS HIS FUCKING INTENTION AND DESIRE.

A new AWB will not happen.

Because of why? Because people like you are against it? Or because people like me, who you refer to as paranoid to be against it, are actually against it? Do you not see your circular logic there?

We had a ban for 10 years in this country and you guys did just fine.

Because the ignorant idiots who passed the law were ignorant idiots and wrote such a poorly written law that it was effectively worthless. That was NOT the intention of the ignorant idiots who wrote it. That's what happens when you are completely ignorant of a subject and try to pass laws about it, what you end up passing bears no relationship to what you thought you were passing.

Anonymous said...

I swear is must be penis envy.


http://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/07/10/quote-of-the-day-alanr-and-hank-archer/

I recommend that this be called “Markley’s Law.”

That has to be some kind of variant of Godwin’s Law: As an online discussion of gun owners’ rights grows longer, the probability of an ad hominem attack involving penis size approaches 1.

Mark Ward said...

Why? Why hasn't and why will he not?

Because he supports the 2nd Amendment...the actual one and not your warped interpretation of it.

Because that IS HIS FUCKING INTENTION AND DESIRE.

No, it isn't. That's your emotions and paranoia running away with you. Did you listen to his speech today? Did you see the families of the Newton victims? You ought to be completely ashamed of yourself. Your intransigence and hatred are preventing solutions.

Because of why?

Because it won't prevent as many future attacks and the effect will be negligible. It didn't work the first time. But, clearly, the mentally ill and criminals are finding easy ways to get guns and it's because our gun laws need to be refined.

Anonymous said...

Because he supports the 2nd Amendment...the actual one and not your warped interpretation of it.

Oh bullshit, on both parts.

He does no such thing.

And explain to me how 'PEOPLE, KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, NOT BE INFRINGED' can even be interpreted in ANY OTHER MANNER.

Did you see the families of the Newton victims?

What does that have to do with whether or not it is O's intention to 'come after the guns'? Emotional distraction?

Your intransigence and hatred are preventing solutions

No, your emotions blind you to the fact that nobody has come up with any plan that will actually solve anything. The plans you and your ilk keep pushing WON'T SOLVE the problems that you also have a problem even identifying. Yet, like emotionally small children you insist something, anything must be done.

Mark Ward said...

And explain to me how 'PEOPLE, KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, NOT BE INFRINGED' can even be interpreted in ANY OTHER MANNER.

You already did, GD. There is a whole list of people that can't be allowed to have guns. I want to make harder for those people to get guns. You seem to want to make it easier for them to get guns. Why? The laws we have aren't working now and if we want people to continue to have the right to bear arms, we have to refine those laws. Why not try to help in doing that instead of being fucking baby about it because you are paranoid about liberals?

Budge, GD, a little. It's not going to kill you and it certainly won't result in your psychotic delusions.

Larry said...

Too many of the laws we have now aren't being enforced, so the solution is to pass more laws that demonstrably will do nothing to stop criminals? Why? {stirring music}So that we feel like we're doing something!{/stirring music} "Yeah, GD, budgle because it'll work out just as well as older idiotic legislation and that's okay because ... shut up, you uncaring Rethugligican gun nuts!"

"You're all paranoid about guns when you should be paranoid about the Religious Right passing laws against gay marriage, and the teaching of evolution, and turning this country into a theocracy! Haven't you SEEN the cartoons????"

Juris Imprudent said...

A new AWB will not happen.

I agree.

So what exactly is Obama doing then? Feeding a little red meat to the followers?

Juris Imprudent said...

We had a ban for 10 years in this country and you guys did just fine.

What are you complaining about not being able to get any whiskey, you still have beer.

Juris Imprudent said...

You ought to be completely ashamed of yourself.

That's funny coming from someone who is never ashamed of how foolish he is at times.

Anonymous said...

Budge, GD, a little.


Really? You want me to compromise?

I could go on and on, but the plain and simple truth of the matter is that a genuine "compromise" means that both sides give up something. My side of the discussion has been giving, giving, and giving yet more -- and your side has been taking, taking, and now wants to take more.

Read the whole thing, then talk to me about why I should budge one more time.



I want to make harder for those people to get guns.

Is it already illegal for them to have guns? You want to make it more illegal? Double plus secret squirrel illegal?

Or do you want to make more people ineligible to exercise a right SPECIFIED in the constitution?

The laws we have aren't working now

Because you have a view of the law that is based in utter fantasy. Laws do not prevent criminals from committing crime.

if we want people to continue to have the right to bear arms, we have to refine those laws.

if we want people to continue to have the right to free speech, we have to refine those laws.

That sounds like just as much bull shit as what you said. It's a right Mark - not an option, not a privilege, not a benefit - A right. And if the same laws, restrictions and attacks were done on any other right YOU would be in pure histrionics about it. But instead, because you don't like it - I'm the paranoid extremist? Pathetic.

Mark Ward said...

Larry, I'm looking to refine one law on the books-background checks. You guys don't want that because of moonbat nuttery.

GD, we did budge. No AWB. No ban on ammo clips. Increased armaments in schools with police and security guards. That's 3-0 in case you are keeping score. Now you jack wagons don't even want to make gun trafficking a greater offense. It's all about adolescent belligerence, isn't it?

Is it already illegal for them to have guns?

Yes, but they can already get them by finding someone who doesn't have to to do background check for whatever reason.

if we want people to continue to have the right to free speech, we have to refine those laws.

I don't think you want to go back to that discussion. Remember what happened?

. It's a right Mark - not an option

It's not a right anymore if you break the law and we can't know that if we don't do a background check.

I think you need to think long and hard about what side you are going to be on for this one, GD. You and your ilk are going to get rat fucked on this on because you couldn't give up the stubborn 9 year old rag fest. If nothing of substance gets passed as far as background checks and there is another school shooting, AWB, ammo clips and probably more will be back on the table and through Congress before you can change your fucking underwear. You have less to lose now then you will later.

Do you think the parents of Newtown are going to go away, GD? If it were me and it were my children (or any of my students which I consider my children as well and would protect them with my life) and it happened again somewhere else, everyone from Wayne LaPierre all the way down to you guys from TSM would be up shit crick and wondering how you squandered a chance to make it all go away.

If a half ass bill on background checks goes through, the life the gun lobby is effectively over.

Anonymous said...

Mark, you've been told over and over and over again that universal background checks minus universal registration is a worthless law. Under worthless law see: assault weapon ban that YOU admit did nothing.

So you want a law that DOES NOTHING? Or are you having trouble with the logic that explains why it won't work?

Or is it really that you want to get it in the door so that later, when it is shown to be worthless without registration then you can complain loudly about the right being adolescent for resisting 'reasonable compromise' 'for the children' and passing a 'refinement' to the laws and establishing registration?

Juris Imprudent said...

You guys don't want that because of moonbat nuttery.

The Constitutional limits are moonbat nuttery? Or am I not one of the guys?

Anonymous said...

Never before has such a comprehensive survey of law enforcement officers’ opinions on gun control, gun violence, and gun rights been conducted


5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent).

4th at 14% say improved background checks for mental wellness. Note that that does not expand background checks - only expand medical information into the system. Personally I don't think this will work very well. The left spent the decade after 'one flew over the cuckoo's nest' dismantling our mental health system. In order for this to work you'd have to do a lot more involuntary assessments and commitments. Then you have the issue of if a person is mentally too unsafe to allow in public with a gun, why are they not also too unsafe to allow in public with gasoline, matches, household chemicals or cars?

You'll also note that what equates to Marks fav universal background checks ranks down second to last with 1.5%.

Mark Ward said...

Mark, you've been told over and over and over again that universal background checks minus universal registration is a worthless law

Operating under the false assumption that imperial declarations hold any weight with me is a very serious flaw that I have pointed out to you many times. I guess I have to remind you again that right wing blog douche doesn't mean shit anymore. You don't get to state something and then expect people to fall in line. Of course, this is a prime example of how authoritarian you guys really are:)

More importantly, this may seem like a foreign concept to you but you guys are, in fact, wrong. And that makes the foundation of this statement fundamentally flawed. It sets up a paradigm where you use appeal to fear and appeal to probability (background checks will lead to confiscation). From these fallacies, you are able to "win" so let's dispense with your moonbattery immediately. I won't operate in your framed and in the bubble reality.

The last time I checked, we live in the most innovative country on the planet. Considering what we have accomplished and the hardships we have gone through, I think we can figure out a way to run background checks on gun purchases without having it result in confiscation, disarmament and re-education camps. This is seriously a ridiculous and "child with anxiety issues view" of our country.

You're also setting up registration as something to be feared and pants shitting which is another giant load of paranoid bullshit. The government hasn't seized my car or my fishing boat or any of the other things I register on a daily basis so to intimate that they are going to take my gun makes no sense. No one is coming to get us, asshole.

So, to put it simply, GD, stop acting like a lunatic and try to be a part of the solution. What you are failing to see is that you are making it much worse for yourself in the long run. Support the current bill without any further watering down and the Newtown families will likely go away and forget about AWB and clip bans. Even if they don't, they won't get much support from even Democrats in Congress. Fail to back universal background checks and you open up a relentless campaign that will result in you losing much more than you think you are going to lose now.

Anonymous said...

Sigh........


Telling you that if the wings break off the plane it will crash to the ground is a statement of facts and logic - NOT AN EDICT. Just because you cannot or will not fathom what I have been trying to tell you does not make it so. It just means I have not penetrated your bubble.

How about you explain to me how universal background checks will work.

As a hypothetical (don't fuck this up like you did last time - look up the definition of hypothetical if you need to.) let's say I have three guns. One my dad got when he was a kid and then gave to me 30 years ago. The second I bought from a gun store five years ago. The third I bought from a friend yesterday.

Let's say today you pass a universal background check law.

Tomorrow I sell all three guns to my neighbor. We don't do a background check.

How do you know, either at the time of the transaction or at any later date, that we didn't do a background check?

If you can't know that - how can you expect the law to be effective - because you cannot enforce it.

Anonymous said...

background checks will lead to confiscation

No, you are conflating the arguments and being fundamentally dishonest.

Your argument is that background checks are reasonable and that if I oppose them I am being extreme. It may surprise you that I actually don't have a big problem with background checks.

You also use the argument that most people are ok with background checks. See my statement above.

You however do not try to claim that most people are ok with universal registration. You cannot do that because most people ARE NOT ok with registration. Your position is the extreme one in this particular case.

I have been trying to explain to you that even if you, me and everyone else is ok with background checks - such a law will not be effective without registration. Which me and most other people, as I said, are not ok with.

Anonymous said...

This is seriously a ridiculous and "child with anxiety issues view" of our country.

'Head in the sand view'

I have 4500 years of recorded history on my side. You don't.


The government hasn't seized my car or my fishing boat or any of the other things I register on a daily basis so to intimate that they are going to take my gun makes no sense

How many congresscritters both state and federal can you name that are on record wanting to take away your car or boat? Do you want me to start listing such people who do indeed want to take away guns?

So, to put it simply, GD, stop acting like a lunatic

How many times have you came and taken a piece of my cake in the name of reasonable compromise? How many times have you said that was the last piece you were going to take? How many times was that last piece you took supposed to solve the problem? And how many times have you came back with the same old problem and a 'new' solution that involved the 'old' tactic of taking away a piece of my cake?

No. No more. Not one more inch. You've had your try and have failed EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Mark Ward said...

Sigh........

You do realize that writing that is usually a fairly significant tell.

Telling you that if the wings break off the plane

False equivalency.

(don't fuck this up like you did last time

Wow, you guys really are insecure, aren't you?:)

How do you know, either at the time of the transaction or at any later date, that we didn't do a background check?

The problem I have with this mentality is that you aren't even trying. You're essentially being a belligerent teenager who sits in his room and yells from behind a closed door about how there is no food in the house but won't get off his fat ass and go to the store.

I would suggest, for example, an exemption for familial transactions (which is likely going to be in the bill) or a simple bill of sale that a seller, who is responsible gun owner (as you say all of you are) could use in a transaction at the local police department and they could stamp the receipt after they do a background check with both the buyer and the seller keeping the receipt. The law could also require anyone who sells a gun to be a licensed dealer who are now required to do background checks. It's actually really easy to check someone's record online. If you are selling a gun to someone, you can just check their license and use one of the many sites out there to look up their record.

I have 4500 years of recorded history on my side. You don't.

What's ironic about this statement is that all that history shows how terribly stupid, irresponsible and violent people can be. Yet you seem bent on making sure it's easy for them to have access to a wide swath of armaments. That's the disconnect that I just don't understand. You bemoan the liberal view that everyone is fundamentally good yet in the same breath admit that they aren't so we should all have as liberal access to guns as possible so the "good ones" can protected themselves. Yet they don't...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/us/tennessee-gun-death/?hpt=hp_t2

See the dichotomy? You are essentially embracing Rousseau.

taken a piece of my cake

How many of your guns have been taken away by the federal government?

Juris Imprudent said...

The problem I have with this mentality is that you aren't even trying.

Is it really trying when you do something that is utterly pointless? Is it really admirable to demand that the govt do something it doesn't have a legitimate basis to act on?

Anonymous said...

You do realize that writing that is usually a fairly significant tell.

Does that mean I can apply the same to the NUMEROUS times you've said it here?


False equivalency.

NO IT FUCKING ISN'T YOU ANENCEPHALIC MORON.


Wow, you guys really are insecure, aren't you?

No, you have a proven track record of completely misreading and mis-comprehending what is said to you. For example, the last time I tried to explain, using a hypothetical, why background checks won't work, you fucked up the entire concept of hypothetical and then you did it again this time - IT'S A FUCKING HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO YOU FUCKSTICK. The use of the possessive "I" does not imply ME. When you jump to calling ME a teenager based on a HYPOTHETICAL "I" you prove that you cannot fucking read.


As for said proven track record of misreading....


I know you totally and completely (and perhaps intentionally) misread my question to you. You gave really good answer to a question that wasn't asked, nor was it even close to what was asked.

How do you know, either at the time of the transaction or at any later date, that any two people didn't do a background check on the sale of any particular gun?

That is the key to the whole god damned operation.

Mark Ward said...

See my most today, GD, for a continuation of this discussion.