Mildly Funny

[phee]

[torn asunder]

i clicked in here half-expecting to see a link to my profile, or pic...

[DJ Nocker]

We get it, your a Democrat...

[Slogo]

We get it, your a Democrat...

Doesn't make it any less funny

[Raev]

Not only Democrats snicker at Faux News. I'm proudly conservative and I almost wet myself with laughter at their idiocy.

That being said....the last panel is epic. Nobody expected it! Where did it come from? The Spanish Inquisition!

[Vater Araignee]

We get it, your a Democrat...

He is? Where is the proof?

With that statement I can assume your a red puppet.

That means that you do think that the forefathers are terrorists because that is what Bushes people started teaching the LEOs. Oh lets not forget that protesting is low level terrorism.

People that memorize the Bill of Rights are or carry the constitution are terrorist suspects.

And dozens of other patriotic activities too.

All of it brought to you by

Bullshitting Unstable Sociopathic Hypocrite

and continually promoted by

Obviously Blatant Arrogant Marxist Asshole.

[n0Mad]

Not only Democrats snicker at Faux News. I'm proudly conservative and I almost wet myself with laughter at their idiocy.

That being said....the last panel is epic. Nobody expected it! Where did it come from? The Spanish Inquisition!

What he said.

[DJ Nocker]

He is? Where is the proof?

With that statement I can assume your a red puppet.

That means that you do think that the forefathers are terrorists because that is what Bushes people started teaching the LEOs. Oh lets not forget that protesting is low level terrorism.

People that memorize the Bill of Rights are or carry the constitution are terrorist suspects.

And dozens of other patriotic activities too.

All of it brought to you by

Bullshitting Unstable Sociopathic Hypocrite

and continually promoted by

Obviously Blatant Arrogant Marxist Asshole.

Yea...Luke Skywalker was a terrorist too. So?

[Vater Araignee]

Yea...Luke Skywalker was a terrorist too. So?

No the Empire where terrorists, the Rebels where not the ones that destroyed Alderaan to show their strength.

The Rebels didn't attack non imperial representatives.

Even if you think that there where civvies on the Death Star, then according to US doctrine since WWII, blowing the thing up wasn't a terrorist activity.

But you just keep going with what ever lie the fed decides to feed you today and keep on making issues Republican or Democrat when both parties are actually carbon copies when it comes to the truly important issues.

[phee]

Yeah... I am not really part of either party.... but I do find that my beliefs fall on the side that believes in gay rights, furthering the sciences, separation of church and state, woman's right to choose, education, etc.... I suppose that means that most Republicans would see me as a Democrat by default.... But most of the political Dems these days are a bunch of pansies anyway.... usually when Obama or the Democrats come to an "agreement" with the Republicans they are missing their watch and lunch money by the end.

[Slogo]

Yeah... I am not really part of either party.... but I do find that my beliefs fall on the side that believes in gay rights, furthering the sciences, separation of church and state, woman's right to choose, education, etc.... I suppose that means that most Republicans would see me as a Democrat by default.... But most of the political Dems these days are a bunch of pansies anyway.... usually when Obama or the Democrats come to an "agreement" with the Republicans they are missing their watch and lunch money by the end.

Seen Real Time on Friday I take it?

In total agreement

[phee]

Seen Real Time on Friday I take it?

In total agreement

Indeed indeed

[GothicSilencer]

No the Empire where terrorists, the Rebels where not the ones that destroyed Alderaan to show their strength.

The Rebels didn't attack non imperial representatives.

Even if you think that there where civvies on the Death Star, then according to US doctrine since WWII, blowing the thing up wasn't a terrorist activity.

But you just keep going with what ever lie the fed decides to feed you today and keep on making issues Republican or Democrat when both parties are actually carbon copies when it comes to the truly important issues.

So. A kid has his parents killed by the military of the most powerful government in the world/galaxy/whatever. He then teams up with a group that IS ACTIVELY AND MILITANTLY RESISTING SAID GOVERNMENT, and blows up a military installation. Guess what people went to Gitmo for. Al'Queda prisoners were sent to Gitmo from Afghanistan. Al'Queda is a terrorist organization. I'm sure that prisoners from the "Rebel Alliance" were sent to a camp as well, if I remember correctly, if prisoners were taken in the first place, as the Rebel Alliance was, at it's core, an armed insurgency who's aim was the over throwing of the legitimate government. No, the rebels didn't blow up Alderaan. Neither did Al'Queda drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which Nagasaki didn't have ANY military significance. Hiroshima did, but dropping a bomb on Nagasaki was like the terrorist blowing up the NYC Trade center. The Pentagon was like Hiroshima. Except that the Trade Center and Pentagon were under the rule of the legitimate government, just like the Death Star, making Al'Queada AND the Rebel Alliance terrorist.

Good Day Sir!

[GothicSilencer]

He is? Where is the proof?

With that statement I can assume your a red puppet.

That means that you do think that the forefathers are terrorists because that is what Bushes people started teaching the LEOs. Oh lets not forget that protesting is low level terrorism.

People that memorize the Bill of Rights are or carry the constitution are terrorist suspects.

And dozens of other patriotic activities too.

All of it brought to you by

Bullshitting Unstable Sociopathic Hypocrite

and continually promoted by

Obviously Blatant Arrogant Marxist Asshole.

Also, technically, the Founding Fathers WERE Terrorists. They were violently opposing the legitimate government. They committed terrorists acts like the Boston Tea Party. And when the legitimate government tried to enforce their rule by force, the FF's responded by organizing into a field army themselves and also used such "barbaric" tactics as shooting officers, attacking from hidden ambush spots (like woods) and harassing the supply lines. You know. Tactics used by North Vietnam irregulars in the Vietnam war, and Al'Queda today.

Terrorists.

[Vater Araignee]

Also, technically, the Founding Fathers WERE Terrorists. They were violently opposing the legitimate government. They committed terrorists acts like the Boston Tea Party. And when the legitimate government tried to enforce their rule by force, the FF's responded by organizing into a field army themselves and also used such "barbaric" tactics as shooting officers, attacking from hidden ambush spots (like woods) and harassing the supply lines. You know. Tactics used by North Vietnam irregulars in the Vietnam war, and Al'Queda today.

Terrorists.

Using your line of logic, that would make the American military the biggest terrorist organization in the world... If you believe that they had nothing to do with 9/11.

I also find it interesting that you choose to compare the Founding Fathers to not one but two proven CIA sponsored organizations.

Calling a freedom fighter a terrorist equates to allowing tyranny to reign.

You know tyranny, the unrestrained despotic abuse of authority.

I'm sorry to have to inform you but you can not respond to a tyrant who is by definition a terrorist with terrorism, only rebellion. Qualifier: as long as you are only attacking agents of the tyrant.

[GothicSilencer]

Using your line of logic, that would make the American military the biggest terrorist organization in the world... If you believe that they had nothing to do with 9/11.

I also find it interesting that you choose to compare the Founding Fathers to not one but two proven CIA sponsored organizations.

Calling a freedom fighter a terrorist equates to allowing tyranny to reign.

You know tyranny, the unrestrained despotic abuse of authority.

I'm sorry to have to inform you but you can not respond to a tyrant who is by definition a terrorist with terrorism, only rebellion. Qualifier: as long as you are only attacking agents of the tyrant.

The US Army is not the biggest terrorist organization. It is NOW a legitimate government. Just like the current French government started out as terrorists against the Vichy French Government of WWII, and before that terrorists against the French Monarchy. NOW it is the legitimate French Government. Al'Queada WAS CIA funded, yes, and look how bad an idea that was. Terrorist, Revolutionary, and Freedom Fighter all mean the same thing. If the government you live under likes them, they are Freedom Fighters. If your government DOESN'T like them, they are terrorists. If they succeed and set up their own government after overthrowing the one before them, they are revolutionaries. Those three words very only by success and how much YOUR government likes them. We love the hell out of George Washington, AND he succeeded, so he was a Revolutionary. At the time, they were labeled Terrorists by the British Government. IF there was a friendly government to them, like the US Government was to Al'Queda when we were funding them, Washington would have been a Freedom Fighter to them. At the end, in fact, that's exactly what the French thought of him.

So, no, you cannot call the US Government terrorists. Unless you're immortal and were alive in the late 1700s. Also, therefore, your comment that the Empire was the terrorist organization, with the Rebels being legit, makes no sense at all, because the Empire WAS THE LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT! Luke Skywalker, therefore, was a Terrorist. Or Freedom Fighter, or Revolutionary, depending on how much of the Extended Star Wars Universe you know about as well as your opinion of the Rebel Alliance as being Good or Bad.

[Vater Araignee]

Cambridge

terrorist

noun

the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

rebel

noun

a person who is opposed to the political system in their country and tries to change it using force, or a person who shows their disagreement with the ideas of people in authority or of society by behaving differently

Webster

no entry for terrorist

terrorism

1. violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.

3. A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the population of a state.

rebel

noun

from Latin rebellō, re- (“again, back”) + bellō (“I wage war”) understood to be ("I wage war back").

A person who resists an established authority, often violently.

Notice the difference between the words?

I am so sick of people accepting mass media definitions as if they where gospel then casting things that where once considered good into a bad light for the fascist agenda.

~~~edit to add~~~

By definition, I can, and will, call anyone who supports and or willingly funds the murder of civilians a terrorist.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Vater Araignee

[DJ Nocker]

Cambridge

terrorist

noun

the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

rebel

noun

a person who is opposed to the political system in their country and tries to change it using force, or a person who shows their disagreement with the ideas of people in authority or of society by behaving differently

Webster

no entry for terrorist

terrorism

1. violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.

3. A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the population of a state.

rebel

noun

from Latin rebellō, re- (“again, back”) + bellō (“I wage war”) understood to be ("I wage war back").

A person who resists an established authority, often violently.

Notice the difference between the words?

I am so sick of people accepting mass media definitions as if they where gospel then casting things that where once considered good into a bad light for the fascist agenda.

~~~edit to add~~~

By definition, I can, and will, call anyone who supports and or willingly funds the murder of civilians a terrorist.

Webster has "Jiggy" as well as "Bling" as legitimate words so putting definitions up really doesn't mean anything to me. But this is amusing.

Edited April 9, 2011 by DJ Nocker

[GothicSilencer]

Cambridge

terrorist

noun

the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

rebel

noun

a person who is opposed to the political system in their country and tries to change it using force, or a person who shows their disagreement with the ideas of people in authority or of society by behaving differently

Webster

no entry for terrorist

terrorism

1. violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.

3. A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the population of a state.

rebel

noun

from Latin rebellō, re- (“again, back”) + bellō (“I wage war”) understood to be ("I wage war back").

A person who resists an established authority, often violently.

Notice the difference between the words?

I am so sick of people accepting mass media definitions as if they where gospel then casting things that where once considered good into a bad light for the fascist agenda.

~~~edit to add~~~

By definition, I can, and will, call anyone who supports and or willingly funds the murder of civilians a terrorist.

Ok...you just proved that Rebel and Terrorist depend on the country of origin. Congratulations...either way Rebel equates to Terrorist based on the country of origin. Considering that the country of origin is BRITAIN, not AMERICA for Washington for His self is both a terrorist AND a Rebel, considering that he DID in fact utilize Terrorist actions to achieve his Rebellion. Or was the Boston Tea Party only against the Government or the Populace? I see the depriving the Tea against the Populace (aka. a Terrorist Activity by your definition. (Considering that it creates fear in the populace) as well as a Rebel action, seeing as it was primarily against the established government (for the depriving of the tax revenue.)

Yeah...I don't see how your definitions apply to Washington OR Skywalker to disprove my point.

[Vater Araignee]

Ok...you just proved that Rebel and Terrorist depend on the country of origin. Congratulations...either way Rebel equates to Terrorist based on the country of origin. Considering that the country of origin is BRITAIN, not AMERICA for Washington for His self is both a terrorist AND a Rebel, considering that he DID in fact utilize Terrorist actions to achieve his Rebellion. Or was the Boston Tea Party only against the Government or the Populace? I see the depriving the Tea against the Populace (aka. a Terrorist Activity by your definition. (Considering that it creates fear in the populace) as well as a Rebel action, seeing as it was primarily against the established government (for the depriving of the tax revenue.)

Yeah...I don't see how your definitions apply to Washington OR Skywalker to disprove my point.

Rebel also equates to terrorist based on who is attacked. If a foreign power attacks only American military, they are a belligerent not a terrorist, à la Rebel Alliance.

You have evidence that Washington knew about plans for the Boston Tea party when there is no evidence that Adams even knew? Sure, Adams claimed that it wasn't mob rule but a legitimate protest but praising an action doesn't in itself constitute a terrorist act.

(That is why almost a decade latter Osama bin Laden still has not been indicted for the 911 attacks, no admission of guilt + no proof = no indictment.)

Then you have the fact that the only fear that was caused by the "destruction of the tea" as it was know by until approximately 1833/34, was caused by reports of Mohawks being involved and that was quickly dispelled because people that actually bothered to look saw that they where white men poorly disguised as Mohawks.

Now you want to use the depriving the populace argument as terrorist activities, nobody has been able to put fourth proof of deprivation. Sure they where deprived any of that particular tea, but tea from other sources legal and not quite illegal where still being brought in, running the gambit from inferior through superior to the destroyed tea.

But ya know what? Don't take my word for it, research the definitions from multiple sources

(old and new, so you can get an idea as to when things started to change) research international treatise, conventions and laws.

And most important of all, research history so you don't claim someone was involved in something they where not.

[Vater Araignee]

Webster has "Jiggy" as well as "Bling" as legitimate words so putting definitions up really doesn't mean anything to me. But this is amusing.

That's hyperbole I hope, because if it is not then I am forced to assume you are speaking an independent language that takes advantage of preexisting syllable combination's and therefor wile your structure seems familiar, no knowledge of actual intent behind the communication can be claimed from my side. Oh wait, that is hyperbole too... or is it?

Funny thing, when I first heard bling-bling and d'oh where in the dictionary I looked in a hard copy of MW 2010 unabridged. Bling-bling was not included and d'oh was listed as slang aka vulgar argot.

I also know that they are not in the Cambridge or Princeton dictionaries.

The inclusion or exclusion of a slang term in a dictionary does not invalidate the meaning of another word.

Anything to the contrary is a piss poor argument at best, at worst it is just fucktarded.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Vater Araignee

[GothicSilencer]

I apologize that my meaning was slightly buried by the semantics of my George Washington argument. However, historical inaccuracies and semantic debates aside, the point I am trying to make is that the Founding Fathers were the heads of a terrorist organization. Sure, there is no "proof" that they planned or knew about the Boston Tea Party, which WAS intended to spread the fear of the involvement of Indians, which wasn't very effective but was in fact one of the goals. Just as there is no "proof" that Bin Ladin was the one who planned and gave the go ahead on the September 11th attacks. Woo-hoo. They were still in leadership positions of the organizations that carried out the attacks! By your skewed logic about no proof=no blame, you officially cannot blame Obama or Bush or any other President for that matter, FOR ANYTHING! They are simply the head of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH that is charged with carrying out the orders of the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH! Sure, they can submit proposals TO said legislature, but in the end, the legislature is the ones everyone needs to be mad at, because the President isn't the guy that decides ANYTHING! He can only carry out the decisions of others.

Congrats, once again you're making an argument that makes me not want to vote in presidential elections, because that guy is just a figurehead.

[GothicSilencer]

Rebel also equates to terrorist based on who is attacked. If a foreign power attacks only American military, they are a belligerent not a terrorist, à la Rebel Alliance.

Ok...but the Rebel Alliance CAN'T be a belligerent...it's not a force from OUTSIDE the Empire. The movies even state that several times, that they are rebelling from within. They are a DOMESTIC power, not a FOREIGN power. Your entire argument is invalid.

[Vater Araignee]

Congrats, once again you're making an argument that makes me not want to vote in presidential elections, because that guy is just a figurehead.

Now your sounding like me sans my statements about both sides working for the same goal.

When you look at executive orders that is when president become obviously become culpable.

Same goes for declassified document and leaked documents.

Don't forget the fact that a proven lie is proof of a lie and if someone backed up the lie then it is proof of conspiracy even if we don't know what they are covering up.

Don't forget that Barry Soetoro I mean Barack Obama didn't even talk to congress when he had Libya attacked. His action states outright that congress and they law means nothing. Hell Bush should have been impeached for implying he was above the constitution too.

No person is above the Constitution, no person is below the Constitution and all who attempt to violat it should be executed for high treason. This isn't to say that we should never ratify the Constitution but to act against it without ratification is treason.

[Vater Araignee]

Ok...but the Rebel Alliance CAN'T be a belligerent...it's not a force from OUTSIDE the Empire. The movies even state that several times, that they are rebelling from within. They are a DOMESTIC power, not a FOREIGN power. Your entire argument is invalid.

Once again I suggest you do some research.

Your lack of knowledge invalidates your argument.

How hard can it be to look up the word?

How hard can it be to read the Geneva convention?

If you have internet access then it isn't hard at all.

Belligerent

Etymology

From Latin belligerēns (“waging war”), present active participle of belligerō (“wage war”), from belliger (“waging war, warlike”), from bellum (“war”) + -ger (from gerō (“wage, carry on”)).

1. Engaged in warfare, warring.

2. Eager to go to war, warlike.

3. Of or pertaining to war.

4. (By extension) Aggressively hostile, eager to fight.

5. Acting violently towards others.

Nothing about being foreign.

Are you a student parroting what a professor that wants you to stop thinking critically is saying?