The Goat Pen

puter, where are your graphs?

In other news:

1. A Chinese lady won the French Open. I'll draw the line when the Chinese try to join the SEC.

2. Ilyas Kashmiri, a top Al Qaida commander, just assumed room temperature thanks to a drone strike. Obama's on a foreign policy roll!

3. John Edwards has been indicted. The fop says he didn't think that taking $800K in campaign donations and giving the money to his mistress and love child was illegal.

I argue from the middle and always have.

LMAO! Me, too!

Re DSL's Al-Jazeera video (LOL)...

With idiot leftists like these people, it's just as likely that was staged bullshit.

[youtube]zulgf9qk4jo[/youtube]

Teabagger

I argue from the middle..

Sooo, tick the thick joins tone. The Bobsie twins of pious condescension giving advice to the un-washed.

We're so lucky.

Prof, I own 27 guns..


What year did you join the NRA?


Me....1983.

Did you guys know that the word "gun" never appears in the US Constitution?

Are Time and Mark Halperin Racist? Herman Cain Omitted Twice in GOP Oddsmaking
By Tim Graham | June 03, 2011 | 23:03

Twice in the last two weeks has Time magazine devoted a page to Mark Halperin's oddsmaking on who will be the Republican nominee -- the May 23 issue (page 35) and the June 6 issue (page 16). Twice, there's been no mention of Herman Cain. The GOP cast of contenders is lily-white. This seems odd, since Cain participated in the first presidential debate on May 5 to high praise and formally announced on May 21. Are Time and Halperin racists? They can't say they're unaware that Cain is running.

They can't say that Cain is too much of a long shot. In the first set of odds, Halperin put Michele Bachmann at 1,000-to-1. (The best odds in order were to Romney, Huckabee, Daniels, Pawlenty, Huntsman, Gingrich, and Palin, second to last at 60 to 1.) In the second set, Huckabee and Daniels were removed from the list, and Santorum (at 500 to 1) and Ron Paul (at 2,000 to 1) were added. Bachmann was still at 1,000 to 1. Halperin also added "Mystery Candidate" -- but named those (Rick Perry, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, and Jeb Bush.)

Time magazine should really have to explain this remarkable (double) oversight of a black Republican

It's not in there, not once.

fy red shit bird

Neither is "right to abortion."

Neither is Cunt

Professor Tiger wrote:Neither is "right to abortion."

Neither is the "right to not have an abortion "

BTW, the Constitution does not mention guns. Instead, it mentions "arms." I don't think it was granting a Constitutional right "keep and bear bodily appendages."

No, it clearly protects the right to keep and bear arms. But it doesn't specify or limit what sort of arms are protected. If we interpret the document literally, the right to keep machine guns, bazookas and flame throwers must be protected as well as the right to keep a tank or, I guess, even a nuclear warhead.

Those founding fathers really were on top of things.

I wonder where I'd have to go to pick up a cheap tank?

I've got gophers in my yard.

Dang, those founding fathers were WAY ahead of their time. When they granted the right to keep and bear arms, they weren't referring to rifles and pistols of their day. They were actually referring to bazookas, flame throwers and missiles which wouldn't be invented for another century. Amazing.

Red Bird, if you are going to advance the liberal position, that's fine, but at least try not to be silly. The founding fathers granted a constitutional right to keep and bear the types of arms that existed in their time - rifles, muskets, pistols. Maybe even a canon, which will do a number on your gophers. Same today.

Red Bird, if you are going to advance the liberal position, that's fine, but at least try not to be silly. The founding fathers granted a constitutional right to keep and bear the types of arms that existed in their time - rifles, muskets, pistols. Maybe even a canon, which will do a number on your gophers. Same today.

So since the founding fathers had no notion of automatic rifles, nor semi-automatic weapons of any sort, since all they had were single shot, muzzle loaded long rifles, and single shot flintlock pistols, it's silly to suggest that automatic and semi-automatic weapons are covered under the second amendment of the constitution.

I'm so happy you agree with me.

Anyone who supports a party that thinks they are entitled to take your money from you (by force, if necessary) -- because they know better than you do how to spend it -- AND wants to disarm honest, tax-paying, hard-working, law-abiding citizens...well, I just don't know what to make of such a person.