Leilin

... and I will officially have AWESOME dreams tonight.

Then... he got it wrong too. (That was easy) It's really okay for you, or him, to get it wrong. You don't, after all, speak Mandarin or Cantonese. What isn't okay (in my eyes) is pretending you know what you are talking about when, in fact, you haven't the foggiest idea. You, of all people, should know that the news not just sometimes but frequently mispronounces the names of other nations and people. Mao is just one example of many: Iraq: Not pronounced like "eye rack." Iran: Not pronounced like the Flock of Seagulls song. Hezbollah: Does not rhyme with "Fez-bowla" I could go on, but the moral of this story is that people who present the news in English rarely know what they are talking about in reference to other languages.

Is there any fact that you can't state as the opposite of what it actually is? Firstly, it is correctly spelled Mao Zedong, pronounced like this and again you prove you have no idea what you're talking about. Chinese to Roman is often not a direct phonetic translation. Secondly, Mao Tse Tung, the alternate correct spelling which you also butchered, is also acceptable, but the former is actually closer to the phonetic. The person who taught you your "history" should probably be tried for crimes against humanity at this point.

So. Not only do you think that Obama is a DA, but you also don't know how Voter Intimidation works. Wow, we know facts aren't your strong suit, but this is a new low. What other interesting factlessoids did you suck from Rush's teat?

... because it's not like they started a case and then dropped it for lack of evidence. Oh, wait. Yes it is, and I'm sure you were equally critical of Bush's administration for not pursing that case as it was happening.

*facepalm* You realize that the president isn't a district attorney right? Never mind, of course you don't.

Also true. Nobody is dismissing BotoX and RDB "just" because they aren't changing their minds. They are being dismissed because they are presenting opinions which are without basis in reputable fact and completely ignoring not just some but ALL of the evidence which is provided to the contrary.

Of course, we come to a completely different conundrum when listening to a person is a precursor to silencing their voice. I believe in freedom of speech. I also believe, as I have mentioned, in the freedom to ridicule those whose speech is made up of half-thought falsehoods and idiocies. Stop that, or you're going to make me agreeing with you a trend.

That, Kitten, makes sense. *bows head* Jason: Perhaps that's the problem that you two meant two different things with "listen," and Kitten took a more literal meaning of the word whereas you took it as more of a "listen and accept"? I personally also take the literal meaning. I do not stop "listening" unless the person has continuously proven that they are unable to say things that aren't completely worthless or inanely stupid (or at the very least devoid of entertainment value), at which point I save myself the headache of trying to communicate their ilk by putting them on ignore in internet forums. Only one person has crossed that line for me on this forum, and while Kitten has neared it in many cases, it is not her. This is one case where what she has said seems completely sensible to me. Even demagogues like RDB, who seem incapable of addressing things from a factual standpoint, I don't have ignored, as they're incredibly silly, but their brand of ignorance is quite entertaining and easy to dissect while I'm doing other things.

Uh...no. Wrong again. the situations you named are cases where gun bans have been a precursor to genocide, not where gun registration has been a precursor to gun bans. Try again, with an attempt to answer the question I asked this time? I get your sarcasm just fine, and so does the rest of the thread, but it isn't tempered well by your inability to answer a straight question or to think critically regarding anything that isn't forcefed to you. Perhaps you should stick to lower forms of situational humor, like Farrelly Brothers films.

I'm sure you can come up with one situation where gun registration led to gun bans, right?

Jason: She's a troll. Probably best to not give her any attention.

While the other networks are getting worse, I fully disagree with the assertion that they have reached the level of awful that Fox News has. To find your edit button, refresh the page. It doesn't appear until after the first page refresh after you make your post.

So... buying adjacent land to your home from a corrupt person is corrupt? Living next door to a corrupt person is corrupt? You don't really have a leg to stand on with this one. And I'll just leave this here. I expect you fully to respond to it without actually reading it. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ayers.asp

Apologies if my prodding of BotoX is bringing his silly rants back into your field of view. I just have a thing about letting blatant falsehoods go unchallenged.

I don't personally believe it is prudent to use the young man who shot Giffords in any relevant discussion on this topic. Only one word should be used to describe that guy: Crazy. Whether he was right wing or not in that scope is irrelevant. ... and calling him a leftwinger is just as stupid as calling him a rightwinger, and equally without merit. Look at the views that he actually expressed: 1. Doesn't believe women should hold office. 2. Hates both George Bush and Giffords. I've looked for a conservative that he expressed hatred for but as of yet haven't seen evidence for that. He definitely dislikes both centrist liberals and authoritarians. 3. Anarchist leanings. 4. Believes in, well, pretty much every political conspiracy, ever. Also believes in the 2012 apocalypse. Attempting to espouse a political leaning to that utter crackpot is a level of disingenuous which is reserved for demagogues and dittoheads. So I'm pretty sure nobody is surprised. Nope. Wrong again there. Bush's administration expressed a WISH to overturn that ban. Obama's administration actually did it. This is why evidence, like the actual text of the law drafted end to end under Obama's watch, is important. It's almost as if things like clear records of when these things happen exist! Hey! Cool! You can no more credit Bush with ending the ban than you can credit Obama with closing Gitmo.

You do realize that a Google search full of right wing blogs and irrelevant links is not evidence, right? Do you even bother to read the things that you are posting or are you just throwing everything you can like a pile of equally useful crap at a wall and hoping some of it sticks? Also, I'm not sure you watched your School House Rock when you were younger. Here's the ACTUAL process this went through: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-627 Notice that law, to which the act was an unrelated rider (bad, even if you agree with the bill's content) was authored on 1/22/2009. Suggesting that bush "started" this is completely baseless in a realm where facts exist. But, then, I doubt you live in that realm with the rest of us.

Everybody knows that The Daily Beast is just a libtard rag! You can tell because they didn't say Sarah Palin is god.

You need to re-read each document. If you have trouble, press ctrl+F and look for the word "enacted." I know that "enacted" is not a word often used by Glenn Beck so if you're having trouble still, use http://www.dictionary.com If you do not find personal liberty to be a priority, you are no more Liberal (or Libertarian) than Ron Paul. You would rather leap at the "OMG OBAMAS GONNA TAKE OUR GUNS" specter than address any real issues.

Unless they're gay or women, apparently. I have provided facts. You have not. Don't mistake the ease with which I refute the utter tripe that you have posted for anything resembling opinion. You have posted things which are the utter opposite of fact, not a difference of opinion. You can post them as much as you like, but you don't have a constitutional right to free speech on an internet forum and you do not have the right to not have your complete lies called out when you post them. Thanks for making another strawman attack, though. It solidifies your inability to discuss this issue like an adult to anybody who bothers to read this. And, see, this is what I was talking about. ZOMG HOW DOES BULLY PULPIT AND VETO WORK!?!? Here are the federal budgets of the last three years, all of which passed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget

Understood. I would rather laugh at their ignorant rantings than ignore them. There are OTHER people who definitely deserve an ignore for trolling here, for sure, though.

You're crazy, lady. EVERYBODY knows that it's 63.5 percent of statistics that are made up on the sput. DUH!

You're obviously a less reliable source than Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck. Every time you use that word with political masturbatory intent, a kitten dies. Not to belabor the obvious, but this explains your rather ardent attachment to political fiction.

Horndog: Where is that feature? O_O The only one I see is the ability to ignore signatures, or I would have ignored 3 or 4 people on this forum ages ago.

See, attacks on Obama don't count because he's a seekrit radical Christian socialist marxist muslim who simultaneously is a do-nothing and is the "most liberal" activist, debt raising president ever. Or something.