Sunday, February 17, 2008

How many ways are there to spell idiot?

Both candidates [Obama and Clinton] are targeting superdelegates in aggressive lobbying campaigns.

Carol Ann Campbell, a superdelegate from Philadelphia, which votes April 22, played for a reporter a recent voice mail from Michelle Obama.

“Hi, Carol, this is Michelle Obama. I’m the wife of Barack Obama, who is running for president. Just reaching out to see where you stand on this presidential race, and obviously we want your public support of Barack.”

Campbell said in an interview she was “somewhat” leaning toward Hillary Clinton. ”Not so much because of her,” she said, “but because of her husband. A brilliant man.”

What. The. Fuck? How can anyone say something that stupid? You can’t vote for someone based on how much you like their husband, how cute you think he/she is, or—god forbid—on how nice their shoes are. *head-desk*

On another note:

Hello!? The United States has GOT to do something about this insane anyone-and-their-crazy-grandma-can-get-a-gun thing. How many deaths will it take for people to understand that? Honestly, your personal right to protect yourself would work so much better if THERE WERE NO GUNS OUT THERE in the wrong hands, to begin with. How selfish can people get?

Take a look at what the U.N. wants and tell me it doesn’t make sense:
  • Reduce the number of guns in private hands that include mandating a maximum one-gun-per-person rule;
  • A ban on possession of handguns by anyone other than government officials and target shooters who would be forced to store their weapons at shooting ranges;
  • Worldwide licensing of firearms registered in a vast U.N. computer bank.
The right to “protect” yourself *snort* should not exclude someone else’s right to live. I’m just saying...


Labels: ,

10 comment(s):

Blogger Isabella said...

We should either implement gun ban or very strict gun laws.

2/17/2008 12:55:00 PM  

Blogger DumSpiroSpero said...

First of all, I can't believe someone like this Carol Ann Campbell may be the deciding factor in who gets the Democratic nomination...whoo boy.

Secondly, Americans love their guns. I don't understand it, but there you have it. I grew up in Omaha, NE, and last year they changed the gun law so anyone can get a concealed carry permit (I'm sure this excludes felons, but pretty much anyone...). Lo and behold, there was a huge rise in gun-related murders over the summer! Who'dathunkit?

2/17/2008 02:03:00 PM  

Anonymous 2nd Amdt said...

Guarantee me that 1) criminals won't have guns and 2) the government won't turn on it's own citizens and I'll think about giving up my guns. Maybe. Reality is that no one - not even the U.N. - can give me either one of those guarantees let alone both.

The U.N. is controlled by Third World dictators. The reason the U.N. wants private citizens to give up their guns is because those same dictators are afraid of their own citizens and it would make things sooooo much easier if the U.N. helped them get rid of their armed citizenry.

Should we give up freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures?

A lot more people are killed by drunk drivers; should we ban all cars or just ban all alcohol? Your right to drink should not exclude my right to live. How about heart disease? Should we ban all fatty foods?

Reality is that you can't get rid of all guns in the wrong hands. Period, it can't happen. Ban guns and the only people who will have them are the criminals.

And since when did countries listen to the U.N.? Let's see, Iraq kicked out U.N.-mandated weapons inspectors. The U.N. backed Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases - the US's emissions are up 7%; the other signers of Kyoto are up double digits. China is a member of the U.N. Human Rights council - China? Oh, yeah, no human rights violations in China.

2/17/2008 06:03:00 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's not forget America and Britain - you know, leaders of "the free world" - illegally invaded Iraq. You are dead on, no countries listen to the UN.

P.S. It's amazing that WMDs haven't been found in Iraq, isn't it? Gosh, could the Iraq war have been about oil?? Hhmm, let me think about that.


2/17/2008 07:07:00 PM  

Blogger Jordis Juice said...

Gun ban is not our reality. People will balk that it's unconstitutional so, if they want to, idiots and criminals like Dick Cheney can shoot someone in the face.

2/17/2008 10:20:00 PM  

Blogger Petra said...

"The U.N. is controlled by Third World dictators."

Second admt, the term third world country is incorrect. The correct term is developing country.

I don't really follow politics but I have this funny feeling that the rest of the world thinks the US is the one that sets the tune in the UN.

2/18/2008 12:53:00 AM  

Blogger Harlot said...

*sigh* Okay, i don't live in the US so i don't give a fig about their amendments. Most of what i got, from Trollop. One thing: why would you need a gun to defend yourself if no one but the police have one?

It's ridiculous how anyone can buy a gun and practically on the streets. If you can't have a gun ban, please have strict gun laws.

Costa Rica has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. "With the exception of the police, the guards, and most of the people with guns couldn't use them since they didn't have any bullets. Furthermore, Costa Rican laws says that if you draw a gun on another person, even if its a toy gun, that is a criminal offense and you can be tried for attempted murder."

2/18/2008 01:43:00 AM  

Anonymous 2nd Amdt said...

Harlot - "why would you need a gun to defend yourself if no one but the police have one?" That's the problem, cops aren't the only one with guns, criminals have guns. Why? Because by definition criminals don't follow the law, so any law banning guns will be ignored by criminals.

We have strict gun laws; we have 20,000 gun laws on the books. And guess what? The criminals ignore every one of them when they commit a crime. Passing a law to ban guns will only be followed by the non-criminal, law-abiding citizen, leaving us vulnerable to criminals.

2/18/2008 02:51:00 PM  

Anonymous karamia said...

I generally lean left on most political issues, but on guns, I definetly go to the right. I completely agree that if you ban guns in the US, the police and the criminals will have them. I don't see how this would ever change.
If you could take the guns away from the crazies that shoot people in schools, I believe many would find another way to express their violence. Guns are not the issue; the issue is that we have a generation with a number of kids that feel the need to kill people and themselves. Something clearly is happening here that needs to be addressed.
And 2nd Amdt. is right, more people are killed in car accidents each year than gun deaths, but no one talks about banning cars.
I do believe that we should take greater measures to make guns safer and more difficult to get, but I would never support banning them.

2/18/2008 05:48:00 PM  

Anonymous Ollenska said...

Knife + people = death
Poison + people = death
Golf club + people = death
Baseball bat + people = death
Cars + people = death
Rope + people = death
Dope + people = death
Bricks + people = death
Scissors + people = death
Pillow + people = death
Stairs + people = death
Rock + people = death
Broken bottle + people = death
Axe + people = death
Bow & arrow + people = death
Ice pick + people = death
2 X 4 + people = death
The list is endless.

The true equation is:
People + people = death

Since the beginning of mankind people have been killing each other. Taking away one method does nothing to prevent them from killing with whatever is handy.

The only thing you can do is vow NEVER to take the life of another. And if you have children, teach them the sacredness of all life, and make them vow NEVER to take the life of another. Then when they have children, hopefully they will do the same... and on and on...


2/18/2008 09:31:00 PM