Barky is such a hamfisted thug. I can't stop laughing.

LOL

Let anarchy reign. The commies are just waiting to jump into the chaos the reactionaries seem hell bent on creating. The more they divide, the stronger our hammers and sickles get. Workers of the world, your time is near. Gather up your guns and be prepared to march to victory.

LOL it looks like 500 groups were targeted. They're going to start a class action lawsuit against Barky.

Sure does or does it? Do you know what this is about? Doesn't seem that you do.

Interesting.

It looks like the IRS silenced hundreds of Tea Party groups before the election.

LOL one scandal after another. The Kenyan goes after Tea Party and Jews.

It's not surprising at all is it?

oh no, not the bees! aaargh!

With each such post, you sound more and more like Julius Streicher in tone. You will now be designated as an out-of-control troll.

‘Obama policy will lead region to war,’ warns ex-Iraqi MP who’s paid heavy price for dissent
Mithal Al-Alusi, whose two sons were killed in a Baghdad ambush soon after he visited Israel, tells The Times of Israel he feels betrayed by the superpower which allowed him to return to his homeland
By Elhanan Miller May 10, 2013, 6:56 pm 19

Mithal Al-Alusi is angry. He is angry with Iran for supporting global terrorism. He is angry with Syrian President Bashar Assad for oppressing and killing his own people. He is angry with his own prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq, for colluding with the two.

But most of all, he is angry with US President Barack Obama for allowing this all to happen.

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email
and never miss our top stories Free Sign up!

“Obama has handed Iraq over to Iran and said ‘do what you like’,” Alusi, a former Iraqi member of parliament who hails from the tribal Sunni province of al-Anbar in western Iraq, told the Times of Israel in a telephone interview from his home in Erbil, the capital of the autonomous Kurdistan region in northern Iraq.

Ten years after freeing Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, the Obama administration has allowed a no less dictatorial regime to emerge, and then handed it over to its avowed enemy Iran, Alusi said.

chicken for dinner tonight. you're all invited.

The UK must be a lovely place.
All that diversity!

Extremists preaching to students in Britain
Oxford University booked Hamza Tzortzis

Nico Hines
Last updated at 1:04AM, May 13 2013

Radical and intolerant Islamist leaders preached to crowds of students at almost 200 official events in the past year, according to a study of external speakers at universities including Cambridge, Birmingham and University College London.

Segregated seating for male and female students is understood to have been implemented for at least a quarter of those public meetings held by the Islamic societies at 21 universities.

If you are a registered Republican, then things pretty much balance out. In reality, people like you do far more damage to the Republican Party than a meaningless, coincidental membership that Castro had in the Democratic Party. I would venture to guess that most of that neighborhood voted Democrat whether they were formal members or not. The fact that two things are true does not mean they are correlated. Any idiot knows that.

I'm not worried about any impact on the Democrats. I'm just glad the Republicans have people like you. It keeps you out of the White House. I'll let you figure out why.

WASHINGTON, May 10, 2013 ― According to voter registration records, Ariel Castro, the Cleveland kidnapper who held three abducted local women in captivity for over a decade, is a registered Democrat.

Even more interesting is the timeline: Ariel Castro kidnaps his first victim, Michelle Knight, 21, on August 22, 2002. After a month and a half of raping the imprisoned girl half his age, on October 5, 2002, he decides to register as a Democrat. In about six months, on April 21, 2003, he abducts his next victim, Amanda Berry, aged 17. Almost a year later, the imprisoned women are joined by 14-year-old Gina DeJesus.

But at least we know he didn’t vote for Mitt Romney in the last election.

Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/peoples-communities-...
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

Huma Abedin is a Sunni Muslim also.

I assume the earlier post about hedgehogs was a thinly disguised reference to the NRA i.e. thousands of pricks.

Your daughter, no doubt. Now we know the lineage.

Oh no, I've just awoken. And Sabrina The Teenage. Witch is singing in my bathroom.

Life balances out. Think of all the schools in Asia and Africa that have no white students either. White people have no reason to complain about any of this. They were the ones who went to Asia and Africa as conquerers and exploiters. But worse yet, think of all of those white scientists and inventors who created all those things that enabled worldwide integration:

The boats of the 16th and 17th century (aka slave ships)
The car
The airplane
The telephone and other devices for rapid (instantaneous) communication.
Explorers like Columbus who couldn't have just stayed at home. (Actually, history has revealed that this was all Columbus' wifes fault since she was a shrew and dominatrix who drove poor Christopher out of his home).

I could never understand why history was never a popular course in our educational system. After all, in what other subject can you just re-write what you are taught to suit you own personal agenda? How many timess have you heard the phrase: 'history has taught us'? That's crazy. The overwhelming evidence is that man is a stupid animal that learns absolutely nothing from history and, moreover, loves to brag about it.

Shock as 84 schools have NO white British pupils at all... double the number of five years ago
Number of such schools has more than doubled from 31 in 2008
Highest concentration of schools is Birmingham with 22
Primary schools make up 67 of the total number
Critics say Labour's 'open-door' policy created integration problems
By JONATHAN PETRE
PUBLISHED: 18:08 EST, 11 May 2013 | UPDATED: 18:41 EST, 11 May 2013
Comments (329)
Share

More than 80 state schools in England have no white British pupils, Government figures show.
The number of such schools appears to have more than doubled over the past five years, and the findings will fuel concerns that some parts of the country are becoming increasingly segregated.
The new figures follow research showing that white Britons are retreating from areas dominated by ethnic minorities, to be replaced by immigrants and other ethnic minorities.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323220/Shock-84-schools-NO-whit...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Hang Jeff Davis on a sour apple tree
Down went McGinty to the bottom of the sea
She's my Annie, and I'm her Joe,
Oh, listen to my tale of
(Whoa!)
Any ice today lady?
No.
Gitty-up!

Maybe too Ivy League for you to get.

Tuna fish is like saying steak-meat. Everyone knows tuna is a fish, but only idiot Yanks have to call it that. Why not also have chicken bird salad?

You were too dumb to get it the first time.

And everyone in Sweden knows the famous Stockholm Sven who does speak Swedish on groundhog day. Everyone except xenophobes like you. Only for you, it must be groundhog-rodent day.

Get it now?

PS: Most groundhogs are Sunni too which only makes sense.

What about tuna mayo? Yeah, not so smart now, are you Mr smarty pants. And FYI, Hedgehogs are genetically incapable of learning Swedish.

Mares eat oats.
Does eat oats.
Indians ride elephants.
Arabians ride camels.
Americans drive Cadillacs.
The British drive on the left.
The Japanese drive on the left.
Tuna is fish.
Tuna fish salad is redundant.

Get it?

Yep. Got it. Makes sense.

Here is some information that explains Libya-Syria Benghazi and the Muzzie Brotherhood.

Obama is Sunni, Turkey is Sunni and Al Qaeda is Sunni.

Iran is Shiite.

Get it?

Saudi Arabia is also Sunni, remember the bow?

Ummm. OK

Damn that Bush!
When does Obama become president?

Broken record from a parallel anti-Earth solar system. The real numbers don't lie. Bush killed more Americans in Iraq than Al-Quaeda has throughout it's existence. Imagine the term limit amendment being waived and a contest between Obama and Bush for a third term. Bush is so popular with Republicans he wasn't even invited to their last two national conventions.

Wont you take me to,....funky town.

Obama lied.
Obama lied to himself.

He really, really wanted to believe 9/11 was all about Osama Bin Ladin. When we got Osama it would be over.

He didn't want to believe there was a war with Islamists and we had to fight them in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and interrogate them in places like Gitmo.

Of course Al Qaeda didn't kill our Ambassador. We got Bin Ladin didn't we? It was the video.

Obama is a fool, and his Middle East house of straw is collapsing.

George W. Bush knew better.

Who would want Quebec after the miserable performance by the Canadiens. No parade on St. Catherines this year, eh?

Once a Commonwealth (C)
Once a Nation (N)
Once a Domninion (D)

OR

C,eh; N, eh; D eh !!!

(Just a little apolitical history lesson for those with a sense of humour).

You can have it

maybe all the heavily armed US citizens should invade Canada and take Quebec for America

did you know that if you spelled out every one of the states in the United States the only letter you would never use is the letter Q?

And who knows more about the olden days that one who is stuck in the past?

in olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking

Militias are discussed in the main body of the Constitution. There was a clear rationale for having a system of state militias that could be nationalized by the President (which the anti-Federalists opposed). I will leave it to you to figure out the rationale since you have also stated your opposition to spoon feeding. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure that citizens (at least, males) had weapons to bring with them if and when they were called into the militia. And once again, I don't know how to get through your stubborness on this issue. The Amendment states very clearly the purpose was for "the security of a free State". Nothing in that Amendment makes any reference to arms for individual use.

And, once again, in case you didn't notice, or don't remember, the Anti-Federalists lost the argument 13-0. And here you are still arguing a 200+ year old issue. You are living in the wrong century.

You seem to be confused as the meaning of "militia". Militia is the whole of able bodied citizens with their own arms.

You will see once you read the Constitution as I have requested that the Second Amendment refers to the "People"'s right to keep and bear arms not the government's.

No they opposed a standing army, meaning a permanent army. They did not oppose a "national army of any kind". Militias have their place but there is also a national army called up in time of need. You really need to read the documents I mentioned.

"Should I assume you realize that they opposed a national army of any kind and the ability of the President to nationalize the militia (National Guard) and that you see no need for a standing army as well? "

I have read the Constitution multiple times.

The fact that a relatively obscure collection of essays supports your view is quite irrelevant, in particular since the authors lost the argument as you may recall. Should I assume you realize that they opposed a national army of any kind and the ability of the President to nationalize the militia (National Guard) and that you see no need for a standing army as well? How would Bush have had his war in Iraq without the National Guard and his power to use them?

So tell us, how many of the 80-90 anti-Federalist essays have you actually read? I happen to love this quote from the argument against a standing army: (Number 24 Part I)

"But, why is this provision so ridiculous? Because, says this author, it is unnecessary. But, why is it unnecessary? Because, “the principles and habits, as well as the power of the Americans are directly opposed to standing armies; and there is as little necessity to guard against them by positive constitutions, as to prohibit the establishment of the Mahometan religion.” It is admitted then, that a standing army in time of peace is an evil. "

Now, if I thought like you, I would maintain that you are supporting the views of those who associate with Muslim terrorists. I can take things out of context just as well as you.

Read the Constitution and the Anti-Federalist Papers. They support my view. Why should I spoon feed you if you won't make an effort?

"Wrong again. The Constitution including all of the amendment is a document that spells out powers that we, the people, have given to the government and how those powers are to be allocated and shared within the government and between the government and the people. It's a two sided document, not one sided as you seem to believe.

Regardless, what we have here is a clear misunderstand of the amendment itself. You claim it grants rights that it simply does not and you imply an intent which never existed. When you can explain the part about a militia and national security and WHY those two key phrases are part of the amendment, you may get some respect. Until such time, your myth will continued to be exposed for what it is: A big fat lie."

Wrong again. The Constitution including all of the amendment is a document that spells out powers that we, the people, have given to the government and how those powers are to be allocated and shared within the government and between the government and the people. It's a two sided document, not one sided as you seem to believe.

Regardless, what we have here is a clear misunderstand of the amendment itself. You claim it grants rights that it simply does not and you imply an intent which never existed. When you can explain the part about a militia and national security and WHY those two key phrases are part of the amendment, you may get some respect. Until such time, your myth will continued to be exposed for what it is: A big fat lie.

Yes, of course. That makes perfect sense. Everybody knows that the Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part, is about government rights not individual rights.

"Wrong. You are the one who is avoiding the real issue. The 2nd Amendment is very clear about the purpose of having arms. Of course you can't have a militia without weapons. That is exactly the purpose of the amendment. It is NOT about use of arms for individual purposes. It is meant to ensure that militias (as described in the Constitution) do have arms. "

During the George W. Bush years, there were mulitple attacks on American Embassies. Far more than 4 Americans died in those attacks?

Where was the Bush administration then?

Did Democrats jump all over Bush for them? Did they try to blame Bush before any facts were known? Nope.

Only 3 minor Congressional hearings were held. Not surprising since Republicans controlled things for 6 of those years.

Rep. Dan Issa (R-CA) publically stated after the 2010 election that it would be the job of his committee to hold ongoing investigations of the Obama administration looking for malfeasance.

How much more obvious can it be that the current Benghazi hearings are purely political? I guess that Republicans, unlike Democrats, don't understand the concept of national unity during times of national crisis, but will use any opportunity to undermine this country for perceived political gain.

And for those who have forgotten, it took the Bush administration 2-3 days before they determined that 9/11 was an Al-Quaeda operation without any political attacks from the Democrats.

Can you say: Double standard?

Completely tasteless in light of recent events in Cleveland. And not surprising either.

there was a young girl from Yonkers
who had enormous bazonkas
so being a right wing fanatic
I imprisoned her in my attic
and shot her in the head with the gun I obtained cos I AM FREE (shit, doesn't rhyme)

Hey, Mr. Flagman. You are falling behind. You are jeopardizing your NRA Merit Badge for childish flagging. Get with it !

America has an army. It also has a National Guard system which is the militia. At present, both organizations supply all the weapons needed. If you believe that not allowing any weapon to any person for any purpose would hurt our military, I suggest you talk to the Germans, Italians, and Japanese who are still old enough to remember WWII. I suggest you ask all of the National Guardsmen who fought in Iraq whether they had their own weapons or whether they were supplied by the government.

There is neither a basis nor a justification for your extremist position. I have every right to use the word extreme since virtually every poll supports the notion that close to 85-90 % Americans support gun control and regulation much in the same way we do for personal vehicles. I'm surprised you don't argue againts car registration since, obviously, it allows the government to control your ability to move around and, the way you think, that makes it on the slippery slope of travel permits, driving restrictions, and eventually complete house arrest. Sound stupid? Not any more so that your made up interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Note also that I have not called you an idiot or any other such term. I criticize your positions, but not you personally. I guess when you don't have credible positions all you can do is call others names. I still believe that honest men can disagree with one another and still show respect. And that begs the question as to whether you are an honest man.

Wrong. You are the one who is avoiding the real issue. The 2nd Amendment is very clear about the purpose of having arms. Of course you can't have a militia without weapons. That is exactly the purpose of the amendment. It is NOT about use of arms for individual purposes. It is meant to ensure that militias (as described in the Constitution) do have arms.

You have proven absolutely nothing with your numbers. The numbers are completely irrelevant to the intent of the amendment which was to make sure that militias had arms (and that the arms would not be provided by the state, but by individuals). Your reading ability, your comprehension, and your logic are completely flawed as is obvious to anyone who actually reads the amendment.

Once again, the challenge is there. Where does it talk about any right to bear arms for a purpose other than a militia? There simply is NO SUCH RIGHT and repeating your claim won't ever change that. It just makes you a serial liar.

Do you also believe that I have a right to own machine guns, tanks, and jet fighters?

I know you won't or can't answer the above. All you can do is to change the subject and babble along with your meaningless, out of context, right wing talking point 'statistics'.