If I’ve got this straight…you own a restaurant, and post a sign saying “NO GUNS ALLOWED IN HERE”. A robber comes in and holds you up and shoots your cashier.
The cashier’s family can sue you, because if you hadn’t been such a libtard he would have been able to defend himself.
Basically the same rationale as the “no shirt, no shoes, no service” sign. If that’s up and the place gets robbed, you can sue the establishment because, were it not for that prohibition, it’s possible Bruce Lee would have flown in and prevented it.
Sounds good to me. Can we do it for planes?
Brilliant.
OK, that sounds totally not idiotic at all (not you jsc, of course).
I’d rather count on Chuck Norris, being as how he’s alive.
Okla. Bill: Check Here, Fund Fight Vs. Fed Laws
This is a check-off on the state tax return to contribute dollars to a fund to fight Federal lawsuits arising from our totally (R) legislature’s passage of multiple bills that don’t pass constitutional muster. To his credit, [del]Don Quixote[/del] Atty. Gen. Scott Pruitt did not actually seek this funding for the millions of dollars he is [del]pissing away[/del] spending to fight the Feds.
The wierd part is that the bill was introduced as a sort-of-joke by a Democrat who never expected it to even get a committee hearing.
The fact that some loon was running around a Texas college campus slashing people with an X-Acto knife indicates that (a) we need an X-Acto knife ban and (b) gun control legislation is useless.
At the moment, this train of thought appears to be limited to the idiots who post comments to online news stories, but expect an elected official (likely with an ® after his name) to pick up the torch in 3…2…1…
Why??
Could it be the campaign contributions to Indiana GOPers made by a private prison lobby?
Or, to put a Fox News type spin on it, “Some people say he was bribed to provide fodder for the private prison company”.
And dicks fuck assholes . . .
That is bound to apply in all instances, at least until January 2015, regardless of the content of the “even though.”
Hey everybody, it’s time for “What did James Inhofe Say This Time?”!
Well, apparently he feels that the Newtown families want gun control because Obama has said so, rather than, y’know, because someone shot their children.
“Inhofe is brilliant”, said nobody ever.
Given where this took place, I half-expected it to be my evil college BF:
I’m impressed mostly not that he has a black friend, but that he “built Habitat homes for colored people.”
Now there’s some largess you can set your watch to.
What time is it? 1963.
(Kinda suprised “colored” hasn’t made a comeback to respectability. It was the only term my Texas granny allowed to be used as she considered it respectful. By the time she adapted to “Negro”, it was too late. Bless her heart, she did mean well.)
Who is this one black friend that all of these racist white people seems to have?!?
Shit! Somebody warn JFK!
Remember Congressman Joe Barton of Texas? The one who apologized to BP on account of the government insisting that they pay to clean up the mess they made in the Gulf?
[QUOTE=Joe Barton]
I would point out, though, that people like me that support hydrocarbon development don’t deny that the climate is changing. I think you can have an honest difference of opinion on what’s causing that change without automatically being either all in, it’s all because of mankind, or it’s all just natural. I think there’s a divergence of evidence. I would point out that if you’re a believer in the Bible, one would have to say the Great Flood is an example of climate change. And that certainly wasn’t because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve heard of folks denying anthropogenic climate change by invoking sunspots, or volcanoes or other natural phenomenon, but this is the first I’ve heard of the theory of “deity-caused climate change”.
I wonder if there are any research institutes currently studying this theory?