The Gaming Den

DSMatticus wrote:But if you put a Republican in the white house, then you're gambling with a Republican stacked Supreme Court and it doesn't even fucking matter anymore.

So I guess that once we've passed the danger zone of 2016-2020, we never have to worry about the Republican Party stacking the USSC ever again, eh? Thank God the Republican Party will never gain power ever again nor have a chance to implement their unbowed agenda if we block them from making USSC appointments during this time period.

Actually, that should be 2016-2018, because the Democratic Party is definitely going to lose the Senate in 2018 with its current demographics. The Democratic Party should definitely not have to worry about not having to make appointments in 2019 or 2020, because the retirements will happen during the first two years and we'll finally be safe.

Do you guys at least have an actuarial analysis that shows that 2016-2020 2016-2018 will be more critical for maintaining the balance of the USSC than 2018-2024?

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

DSMatticus wrote:But if you put a Republican in the white house, then you're gambling with a Republican stacked Supreme Court and it doesn't even fucking matter anymore.

So I guess that once we've passed the danger zone of 2016-2020, we never have to worry about the Republican Party stacking the USSC ever again, eh? Thank God the Republican Party will never gain power ever again nor have a chance to implement their unbowed agenda if we block them from making USSC appointments during this time period.

Actually, that should be 2016-2018, because the Democratic Party is definitely going to lose the Senate in 2018 with its current demographics. The Democratic Party should definitely not have to worry about not having to make appointments in 2019 or 2020, because the retirements will happen during the first two years and we'll finally be safe.

Do you guys at least have an actuarial analysis that shows that 2016-2020 2016-2018 will be more critical for maintaining the balance of the USSC than 2018-2024?

You are (still) a fucking idiot.

1) It doesn't matter if the democrats hold the senate. The president's "compromise" liberal candidate will still be more liberal than kennedy by a significant margin. If Scalia and Kennedy die or retire during a liberal presidency, we just get a huge fucking boost to the sanity of the court.

2) It isn't just 2016-2020. If Scalia and Kennedy and Ginsberg all live without retiring to 2021, then it matters next election too. But the point is that unfortunately, RBG is not long for this world, and could very easily die in the next four years. Meanwhile Scalia, regardless of how long he might live, could deliberately choose to retire during the next republican presidency. Any one. At all. As long as he remains alive and on the court, any republican president dedicates that spot to a crazy man for the next 30-40 years. Kennedy is the actual motherfucking swing vote, but might die or even worse, choose to retire, during a republican president's term because he hasn't completely forsaken his down with filthy criminals and poor people past. If he does so, then the swing vote becomes Alito or Roberts.

If the sanest one out of Alito and Roberts is who decides the law for the next twenty years, then we are downright fucked. Because neither one is particularly sane on many issues.

3) Once we have passed the danger zone of Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsburg retiring or dying, and being replaced with 50something liberals we have a) some wiggle room, because we have more than a bare 5 sane justices on the Court. b) Until the currently 60 year old Sotomayor feels like dying or retiring before we need to worry about republicans getting a seat off of the sane party.

Yes, if we can just win the next election or two, and then be guaranteed a sane court for the next 20 fucking years if not much longer regardless of who wins the election, that is significantly better than losing the next election and being guaranteed an insane court for the next 20 goddam fucking years.

20 FUCKING YEARS. You are talking about throwing the country under the bus for at least 20 years to accomplish your dream of tanking to get first pick in the draft in the presidential election. Your strategy is terrible and shit, and you can employ it possibly in 4 years, and almost certainly in 8 years without dooming the country to being fucked.

I think that you're on much more solid ground now for saying that 2016-2020 is more critical than 2020-2024 now that you're doing an actuarial analysis.

That said: I think there's room for argument about the replacements for Kennedy and Scalia. I'd place good odds on them retiring during a surprise GOP Presidency in 2016-2020, but they're not quite old and sick enough that it would be guaranteed that they'd have to tag out then and there. I'm sure they could hold out for 2020-2024 if need be. Google says that the average age of modern USSC retirements is 78.5 and both are 79 right now.

The only justice I'm sure that's going to retire next Presidency is Ginsburg. She looks like death warmed over. So I'll spot you her. And we're pretty much back at square one: I don't see 2016-2018 as being more important than 2018-2024.

Kaelik wrote:It doesn't matter if the democrats hold the senate.

Now that's rich. You really don't think that the Republican Party, after sweeping 2018, will just play the waiting game for two years and just flat-out refuse to confirm any nominee to the left of Robert Bork for that time period even if it grinds the USSC's business to a halt and causes a huge backlog?

Lago, do not be such a retard. There is no advantage to losing. Ever. The stakes are really really big, and progress is going to be agonizingly slow. And you just have to fucking deal with that. And there is no rope a dope or reach around or tricky shit you can do.

As long as the Republicans are literally running around suggesting that we create a registry of Semitic people, then letting the Republicans take the executive branch turns us into Nazi Germany. That's not hyperbole, that's not an exaggeration for effect. If there is a Republican in the White House, we will have internment camps with American citizens in them. Those are the fucking stakes.

Until the Republican party either stops being crazy or becomes so crazy that it splits into factions and can no longer effectively challenge for power in a two party system, that's the reality we live in. We vote for democrats who promise and deliver a lot of cocksucking of the plutocrats but also provide various incremental improvements in our lives, or we stay home and actual fascists take over and people start disappearing. Shut up about super edgelord winning by losing bullshit and accept that that is the world you live in. Because that is the fucking world you live in.

-Username17

Lago PARANOIA wrote:I think that you're on much more solid ground now for saying that 2016-2020 is more critical than 2020-2024 now that you're doing an actuarial analysis.

I was already doing actuarial analysis, so was DSM, did you think we were talking about Supreme Court nominations because we hired a team of assassins to take out some justices? Maybe before criticizing other people's arguments you could get the basic fucking familiarity available in a fucking wikipedia article.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:That said: I think there's room for argument about the replacements for Kennedy and Scalia. I'd place good odds on them retiring during a surprise GOP Presidency in 2016-2020, but they're not quite old and sick enough that it would be guaranteed that they'd have to tag out then and there. I'm sure they could hold out for 2020-2024 if need be. Google says that the average age of modern USSC retirements is 78.5 and both are 79 right now.

The might be able to hold out for 2020-24. Which is why if they fucking do, we need to win that one too. Good thing incumbents have such a great success rate. But in any case, losing 2016 consigns the country to hell for 20 goddam years, so who gives a flying fuck whether or not we also need to win in 2020 or whether we might not, winning in 2016 can be our fucking only priority until it is accomplished.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:The only justice I'm sure that's going to retire next Presidency is Ginsburg. She looks like death warmed over. So I'll spot you her. And we're pretty much back at square one: I don't see 2016-2018 as being more important than 2018-2024.

1) You are still lying about the date range.
2) You are still lying about what we have said. No one but you said 2020 doesn't matter if Scalia and Kennedy are still around.
3) You just admitted that the democrats will never win a presidential election again as we descend into complete oligarchy if a republican wins in 2016. You literally just admitted that. Replacing ginsburg, scalia and kennedy with scalia 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 ends any semblance of a democracy this country could manage.

You don't get first pick in the 2020 draft for throwing the election Lago. Please wait 4-8 years for your strategy to not fucking be the literal end of this country before advocating it.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Now that's rich. You really don't think that the Republican Party, after sweeping 2018, will just play the waiting game for two years and just flat-out refuse to confirm any nominee to the left of Robert Bork for that time period even if it grinds the USSC's business to a halt and causes a huge backlog?

No, I really don't think that senate can avoid appointing a new Supreme Court Justice from a moderately leftist position like Kagan or Breyer for two fucking years. I don't think it is even possible. I think I could find 10 senators right now in the Republican caucus that would refuse to do that on principle even before considering the horrific consequences such blatant attempts to destroy the concept of a three branch government would do to their election chances, you know, the ones that determine if they get to keep a job.

Lago_PARANOIA wrote:The only justice I'm sure that's going to retire next Presidency is Ginsburg. She looks like death warmed over. So I'll spot you her. And we're pretty much back at square one: I don't see 2016-2018 as being more important than 2018-2024.

Stop being fucking retarded, Lago.

This is what the court looks like now (age paired with party of president who appointed them):
55-D, 60-R, 61-D, 65-R, 67-R, 77-D, 79-R*, 79-R, 82-D.
*This is Kennedy, the current swing vote.

This is what the court looks like if a Republican wins the presidency and Ginsburg dies:
50-R, 55-D, 60-R*, 61-D, 65-R, 67-R, 77-D, 79-R, 79-R.
*This is Roberts, the new swing vote.

This is what the court looks like if a Republican wins the presidency, Ginsburg dies, and the two oldest Republican appointees choose to retire strategically (spoiler: they will).
50-R*, 50-R*, 50-R*, 55-D, 60-R, 61-D, 65-R*, 67-R*, 77-D.
*These are all justices to the right of Roberts. There are five of them. GG no re, America. GG no re.

If your plan opens with "give control of the Supreme Court to Roberts (or worse)," your plan fucking sucks. Roberts' entire political-judicial career has been built around opposition to voting rights protections (it's no doubt the reason Bush chose him to begin with), and we've already seen that his opinion hasn't changed since taking the bench. So right off the bat, you are looking at a wave of voter suppression laws which Roberts will rubber stamp and very plausibly the death of the Democratic party outright. But hey, let's follow you down this rabbit hole. In exchange for giving up the Supreme Court to Roberts (or worse), you're hoping to... what?

Hit 60 in the Senate?
1) HAHAHAHA.
2) Doesn't matter, you still can't pass any legislature without controlling the house.

Okay, so you'll hit 60 in the Senate and win the House?
1) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
2) Doesn't matter, the Supreme Court can do whatever the fuck it wants with your legislation.

Okay, so you'll win such overwhelming control of the Senate and House that you'll be able to do what Roosevelt couldn't - stack the court.
1) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
2) HAHAHAHA.
3) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
4) LMFAO
5) Oh wait there's a Republican president.
6) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
7) OH GOD I'M LITERALLY DYING.

FrankTrollman wrote:Lago, do not be such a retard. There is no advantage to losing. Ever. The stakes are really really big, and progress is going to be agonizingly slow.

Look, I agree with all of that. What I still want to know is: what makes you think that winning in 2016 won't set us up for an even bigger loss in 2020?

I can understand the logic of taking out payday loans for car repairs and baby formula even when you have no expected income. Because the choices are between starving to death for sure now or starving extra-hardcore in a couple of months unless some kind of miracle happens. This is why, after the Republican Party embraced open fascism, I changed my position. I also find the argument that the USSC will be uniquely vulnerable during this time window rational. After all, hey, a rich uncle could die or you could win the lottery or they might accept you for a long-shot interview while you wait for the Mafia's deadline to tick down.

But I still want to know why people expect anything in the future other than a couple of weeks of relief before the loan sharks arrive with bats and hammers. In the short run, as in 4-12 years, we're not getting incremental changes and stalemating and a reversion to the antebellum status quo unless you think that a positive black swan is going to bail us out or the Democratic Party pulls its head out of its ass. All things being equal, a combination of economic doldrums, low turnout, and voter disillusionment makes a GOP clean sweep of government in 2020 that will erase any gains made in the previous 12 years and more very likely.

As long as the Republicans are literally running around suggesting that we create a registry of Semitic people, then letting the Republicans take the executive branch turns us into Nazi Germany. That's not hyperbole, that's not an exaggeration for effect. If there is a Republican in the White House, we will have internment camps with American citizens in them. Those are the fucking stakes.

I know, which is why I'm planning to vote against the Republican Party in 2016 even if I have to use two vacation days and stand out in the wet rain for several hours.

Kaelik wrote: I think I could find 10 senators right now in the Republican caucus that would refuse to do that on principle even before considering the horrific consequences such blatant attempts to destroy the concept of a three branch government would do to their election chances, you know, the ones that determine if they get to keep a job.

Cantor getting drummed out of office by a surprise challenger, Boehner being zugzwanged so hard that he had to pass the job off to Paul Ryan (who has not ruled out a pointless shutdown), and of course the whole debt ceiling debacle says otherwise. Granted, this would mean crossing a line that hadn't been crossed before, but it's not that much further than previous rounds of brinksmanship.

You're basically arguing that the Republican Party won't break a long-standing norm to greatly benefit itself because if they do, they'll get destroyed... by who, exactly? Their base? Their funders? The MSM? What exactly is the serious peoples' leverage over the bomb-throwers when the stakes are so hard? What exactly does the GOP stand to lose if these 10 mythical senators decide not to just let the USSC's business grind to a halt for two years, especially if a number of them are not facing re-election in 2020? What exactly would happen to the country that would cause the voters to revolt if they did that?

DSMatticus wrote:But hey, let's follow you down this rabbit hole. In exchange for giving up the Supreme Court to Roberts (or worse), you're hoping to... what?

Nothing. You just get extreme pain.

I'm just wondering why you think that after 2024 the makeup of the USSC following a mediocre Dem Presidency + Republic sweep would be any better or even different than after 2020 following a Republican win. Basically, there are two arguments for this position:

[*] The lion's share of USSC retirements happen during this time period and they won't happen during, say, 2020-2024. I still think it's debatable but it's a pretty reasonable position. Ginsburg is going down for sure. Kennedy and Scalia are at their limit but they're not that far past the retirement age and they don't have any major health problems, so I think that they could hold out for 2020-2024 if a Dem won then. But them being forced to retire during 2016-2020 is not out of the question.
[*] Starving to death debt-free now is worse than dying a month later after getting a loan from a loan shark and having their goons beat you to death. Similarly, getting 4 years of incremental improvement followed by fascism is better than getting the fascism now. This isn't really debatable.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Look, I agree with all of that. What I still want to know is: what makes you think that winning in 2016 won't set us up for an even bigger loss in 2020?

BECAUSE LOSING IN 2016 Guarantees the end of democracy as a thing in this country for all time and there could be no greater loss! Did you read even a single thing anyone said?

Lago PARANOIA wrote:I can understand the logic of taking out payday loans for car repairs and baby formula even when you have no expected income. Because the choices are between starving to death for sure now or starving extra-hardcore in a couple of months unless some kind of miracle happens.

You are a fucking idiot. Democrats winning now doesn't make us any more likely to lose in the future. Winning elections is not a fucking credit you take out that you have to pay back later.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:In the short run, as in 4-12 years, we're not getting incremental changes and stalemating and a reversion to the antebellum status quo

In the short run of 4-8 years we are getting a 3 person swing in the Supreme Court that is currently 4-1-4 on the sane to lunatic matrix that will stick for the next 20 years. Deciding you really want 6 insane people on the Supreme Court for the next 20 years because you really believe in this backwards ass bullshit idea that winning elections makes it impossible to win elections is literally so insane that my analogies are broken and I can't explain how insane you are.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:All things being equal, a combination of economic doldrums, low turnout, and voter disillusionment makes a GOP clean sweep of government in 2020 that will erase any gains made in the previous 12 years and more very likely.

1) All things being equal, there is zero fucking reason to expect economic doldrums, low voter turnout, or voter disillusionment to be problems in 2020 based on what we know now.
2) Even if it did, it literally could not replace the gains of three Supreme Court justices, and once again, the alternative is that the swing vote for the Supreme Court is whichever one of Alito and Roberts is MORE insane on a given issue for the next 20 fucking years.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:[*] The lion's share of USSC retirements happen during this time period and they won't happen during, say, 2020-2024. I still think it's debatable but it's a pretty reasonable position. Ginsburg is going down for sure. Kennedy and Scalia are at their limit but they're not that far past the retirement age and they don't have any major health problems, so I think that they could hold out for 2020-2024 if a Dem won then. But them being forced to retire during 2016-2020 is not out of the question.

Yes, aside from the demonstrable fact that a Republican President guarantees 3 appointees in the next four years from the crazy pool, one of which replaces the current swing vote and one of which replaces one of the current liberal justices, aside from that demonstrable fact, and the obvious significant probability that a Democratic President will also get three or four appointments in the first 4 years, and aside from the demonstrable fact that there is literally zero fucking reason to think that winning in 2016 consigns the presidency to republicans in 2020.

Aside from all these demonstrable facts that guarantee beyond a shadow of a fucking doubt to any sane human being that losing in 2016 will have a worse Supreme Court makeup than a Democrat winning in 2016, and the fact that there is literally no reason on the fucking planet to think winning in 2016 loses in 2020, aside from those things, there is no reason at all to believe that losing the next election is more important than the one 4 or 8 years after that.

In related news, aside from being monstrous idiots with bad policies, there is no reason to think Republicans being president is bad at all. Let's just vote for Trump, because if you ignore all the facts that make this a bad decision, it suddenly becomes at least neutral!

There's a lot to reply to, and Lago, I adore reading your posts on other things, but your idea of losing for a future win is incredibly dumb and always has been. I think the words of people here cannot sway you because there's no words to truly capture how awful an idea that is.

You're wanting to spend into bankruptcy out of fear of being poor later.
You're wanting to wreck your car now out of fear of needing car repairs later.
You're wanting to eat arsenic out of fear of getting expired food.

I don't know. I still cannot fully paint how bad an idea it is that you have embedded deep in your consciousness, but in time hopefully the notion passes from your urinary tract on into the toilet like the horrendous kidney stone of a idea that it truly is.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:I'm just wondering why you think that after 2024 the makeup of the USSC following a mediocre Dem Presidency + Republic sweep would be any better or even different than after 2020 following a Republican win.

Your assumption that Republicans will magically sweep 2020 because reasons is fucking stupid. In fact, between shifting demographics and incumbent advantage, a Democratic victory in 2016 virtually guarantees the same in 2020.

Your assumption that an 84-year-old Scalia, with a Republican in the White House, will think to himself, "I'm good. I'll wait for the next one," is fucking stupid. Scalia wants to retire under a Republican president, and he is waiting for a Republican president to do just that. He was only 72 when Bush left office, so he's just playing keep-away with the seat while he waits for the opportunity to pass it on to his masters' next lackey.

Your assumption that Kennedy cares enough either way to not retire during the next presidential term, or wouldn't rather retire under a Republican to begin with, is fucking stupid. He's a swing vote, but he's also a pseudo-libertarian, and he thinks he has more allies among the Republican party than the Democratic one.

Your assumption that there will ever be another Democratic president ever if Roberts controls the court (which he will if a Republican president gets to replace Ginsburg, which by your own admission seems likely to happen if a Republican wins in 2016) is fucking stupid. Roberts has been an active opponent of voting rights protections since long, long before he was a member of the court. His stance on this issue is almost certainly the entire reason Bush picked him (you may have noticed that the Bush's aren't so keen on fair elections). Giving Roberts the court is the return of Jim Crow. That's what it means. That's what Roberts was put on the court to do, and he'll fucking do it.

2020 after a Republican win looks like this (Ginsburg, Scalia, and Kennedy die/retire):
54-R, 54-R, 54-R, 60-D, 65-R, 66-D, 70-R, 72-R, 82-D.

The oldest Republican is 72 - easily another eight years in him. The oldest Democrat is 82 - he's going soon. That's six conservative judges, with John "racism is over" Roberts being the most moderate of the bunch. If Breyer goes, that's seven conservative judges.

2024 after a Dem>Repub looks like this (Ginsburg, Breyer, and one of Scalia/Kennedy die/retire on the Dem's watch; other of Scalia/Kennedy dies/retires on Repub's watch):
54-R, 58-D, 58-D, 58-D, 64-D, 69-R, 70-D, 74-R, 76-R.

That's five Democrat-appointed justices, the oldest of which is 70. It's possible that both Scalia and Kennedy will try to hold out for the next Repub and get lucky when Repubs win in 2020, but unlikely - if they do, that gives control of the court to Roberts, which is terrible. But it's actually less terrible than giving control of the court to five Scalia's with Roberts in reserve.

2024 after a two-term Dem, which is pretty fucking likely if a Dem wins 2016 (Ginsburg, Breyer, Scalia, and Kennedy die/retire):
58-D, 58-D, 58-D, 58-D, 64-D, 69-R, 70-D, 74-R, 76-R.

That's six Democrat-appointed justices, and barring an unexpected death they will control the court until 2040. If Scalia and Kennedy instead try to out last this president, they'll be 87. And you know what? Without a Roberts court (or worse) to rubberstamp widespread voter suppression laws, the current incarnation of the Republican party will not have a shot of winning the 2024 presidency - so even then they are merely delaying the inevitable.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interac ... -refugees/

Fox News has released a poll which suggests that six of the GOP primary candidates would beat Hillary Clinton, if they ran against her for the presidency today. This isn't terribly surprising; the question is how many people in the GOP are drinking the kool aid? Because this sounds like when Romney was sure based on his "unskewed" polls that he would win. So I'm wondering when the epistemic closure will be complete, basically.

Also, this seems relevant:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wha ... lp00000592

Tl;dr: the reason why states which depend on social safety net are electing Republicans isn't because they're voting against their best interest...but because they're not voting, period. People are becoming more disconnected from the political process, so the GOP continues to make gains even where the majority doesn't care for them.

When was the last time a fox news poll predicted a democrat would win any office of any kind over any republican, even a puppy murdering baby rapist? Never. Okay, yeah. I'm surrre Carson will beat Clinton.

Kaelik wrote:When was the last time a fox news poll predicted a democrat would win any office of any kind over any republican, even a puppy murdering baby rapist? Never. Okay, yeah. I'm surrre Carson will beat Clinton.

My favorite was when they were giving their "projections" they were figuring Romney to have ~330 electoral votes. About what Obama got in the final results. They went "Wow, that would be a mandate!"

So then Obama wins, they say it's only ~330 electoral votes, that's not a mandate!

Tonight, for your entertainment: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... story.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/ ... 3-percent/

This is kind of interesting: the received wisdom is that the bigger warchest makes the more serious candidate, and that you literally can outspend your rivals to victory, at least in local contests like state-level primaries. But Jeb Bush, who has outspent everybody by pouring $30 million into ads in Iowa, has dropped hard in the polls.

Now, part of this is that the field is still so very broad - and candidates like Trump and Carson get so much "free" publicity by spouting the most offensive shit imaginable - but it's still very telling. There was some serious talk about Mitt Romney's campaign failure in 2012 as to where all the money for the consultants et al. went, since the GOP obviously didn't get the value they were hoping for out of that investment...and I'm wondering here whether the political campaign machines are so bloated and inefficient that pouring more money into them just won't give you the same results as a twitter zinger.

It's already been seriously proposed that political campaign machines don't actually do all that very much and the candidate with the bigger war chest usually wins because that war chest comes from having more support rather than the other way around. It only makes a difference in very tight races and Bush is several orders of magnitude short of being able to turn his fortunes around with spending money.

Note that 2012 was the first big election since Super PACs became a thing and decoupled campaign finance from general popularity.

So, when does the Den think Trump will publicly make an appearance wearing a Ku Klux Klan outfit adorned with Swastikas?

I highly doubt The Donald will go the full "The Wave" on us.

You have to sort of admire his strategy though: Trump is setting the pace for the race, forcing the other candidates - and increasingly, politicians among both the Democrats and Republicans - to respond to him instead of making any sort of positive statement that Trump would have to respond to. He refuses to give up the commanding position.

He's still not going to get the nomination, but it would be amazing if he did, if only to see how much of the GOP politicians would back him - that would be a real test of tribal loyalties.

To reuse the phrasing I saw someone else use, but which I think elegantly sums up the situation:

Trump is asking for three times more than he really wants, in order to make his actual demands look more reasonable.

And as political stunts, they seem to be working.

The man is a corrupt sociopath with no real qualifications for the position... which makes him pretty much like all the other candidates. And he amuses people, while giving them a way to indicate they don't agree with the way things are going. It is increasingly possible that his campaign could be a real one, something that most people initially dismissed (with good cause).

He is talking about the internet being shut down, and, for any 'murican, even worse, calls people that argue with freedom of speech morons . .
i guess it will, in the end, come to the question:"what's more important to you 'murican? your guns or freedom of speech?"
and i kinda dread the answer to that one . . also, i am of the opinion that anybody who answers:"guns" gets shot and left to die in a public place <.<

doesn't he have a copy of Mein Kampf next to his bed according to one of his wives?

Stahlseele wrote:He is talking about the internet being shut down, and, for any 'murican, even worse, calls people that argue with freedom of speech morons . .
i guess it will, in the end, come to the question:"what's more important to you 'murican? your guns or freedom of speech?"
and i kinda dread the answer to that one . . also, i am of the opinion that anybody who answers:"guns" gets shot and left to die in a public place <.<

doesn't he have a copy of Mein Kampf next to his bed according to one of his wives?

The End of Godwin's Law: Link if image isn't loading for you

That image does not show for me.

Stahlseele wrote:That image does not show for me.

I have no idea why not. Post edited to include a link to the source. Trust me, it's topical. And hilarious.