HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Fake right wing meme aler...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:47 PM

Fake right wing meme alert: that WAS a cop guarding Obama's plane in London!

Friend posted this on Facebook this morning:



Basically the caption claims the man is "not engaged in a police action" but rather guarding "one man...(who) believes that you and I should not have access to the less powerful, less lethal semi-automatic civilian version of this weapon so that we can provide similar protection to our families and ourselves."

However, the real photo by Getty Images is below.



Notice a difference? The right wing page (http://www.facebook.com/WeLikeGunRights) that was the source of this photo posted an EDITED VERSION that wiped the word "POLICE" from the guard's vest!

(Source of original: Click #8 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7526952.stm)

157 replies, 17670 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 157 replies Author Time Post
Reply Fake right wing meme alert: that WAS a cop guarding Obama's plane in London! (Original post)
alp227 Dec 2012 OP
Ohio Joe Dec 2012 #1
skydive forever Dec 2012 #27
Recursion Dec 2012 #2
bettyellen Dec 2012 #5
RetroLounge Dec 2012 #50
Whovian Dec 2012 #3
Warpy Dec 2012 #4
Floyd_Gondolli Dec 2012 #6
barbtries Dec 2012 #7
Floyd_Gondolli Dec 2012 #9
barbtries Dec 2012 #12
snort Dec 2012 #86
Chemisse Dec 2012 #92
barbtries Dec 2012 #130
Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2012 #48
treestar Dec 2012 #136
adieu Dec 2012 #137
treestar Dec 2012 #139
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #8
sarchasm Dec 2012 #14
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #16
marble falls Dec 2012 #127
JaneyVee Dec 2012 #21
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #28
Drunken Irishman Dec 2012 #38
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #47
billh58 Dec 2012 #64
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #88
Kaleva Dec 2012 #65
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #74
Kaleva Dec 2012 #78
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #79
Kaleva Dec 2012 #81
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #83
Jim Lane Dec 2012 #114
LanternWaste Dec 2012 #125
Rex Dec 2012 #22
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #24
Rex Dec 2012 #30
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #33
RetroLounge Dec 2012 #51
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #54
lolly Dec 2012 #31
Rex Dec 2012 #35
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #37
Rex Dec 2012 #39
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #36
Rex Dec 2012 #40
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #41
billh58 Dec 2012 #70
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #72
billh58 Dec 2012 #75
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #77
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #145
Hassin Bin Sober Dec 2012 #42
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #44
Hassin Bin Sober Dec 2012 #46
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #49
Dirty Socialist Dec 2012 #71
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #76
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #80
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #82
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #84
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #87
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #146
CJCRANE Dec 2012 #90
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #93
Chemisse Dec 2012 #103
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #105
Chemisse Dec 2012 #122
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #153
tblue37 Dec 2012 #115
Historic NY Dec 2012 #95
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #98
Chemisse Dec 2012 #97
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #101
Chemisse Dec 2012 #104
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #106
tblue37 Dec 2012 #117
Chemisse Dec 2012 #121
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #147
Chemisse Dec 2012 #151
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #152
RetroLounge Dec 2012 #53
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #57
RetroLounge Dec 2012 #61
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #69
RetroLounge Dec 2012 #118
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #148
G_j Dec 2012 #124
RedCappedBandit Dec 2012 #43
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #45
RedCappedBandit Dec 2012 #52
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #58
Chemisse Dec 2012 #99
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #102
RetroLounge Dec 2012 #63
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #67
Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #111
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #113
Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #116
buzzroller Dec 2012 #126
Ikonoklast Dec 2012 #10
Cha Dec 2012 #17
Flatulo Dec 2012 #56
mzmolly Dec 2012 #11
Lex Dec 2012 #13
DaveJ Dec 2012 #15
MsPithy Dec 2012 #59
humbled_opinion Dec 2012 #18
humbled_opinion Dec 2012 #19
irisblue Dec 2012 #29
humbled_opinion Dec 2012 #34
Rex Dec 2012 #20
sakabatou Dec 2012 #23
PatrynXX Dec 2012 #25
They_Live Dec 2012 #26
irisblue Dec 2012 #32
underthematrix Dec 2012 #55
Dash87 Dec 2012 #60
graham4anything Dec 2012 #62
freshwest Dec 2012 #66
SoapBox Dec 2012 #68
Tiggeroshii Dec 2012 #73
Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2012 #85
sulphurdunn Dec 2012 #89
CJCRANE Dec 2012 #91
SleeplessinSoCal Dec 2012 #94
TheBlackAdder Dec 2012 #96
underpants Dec 2012 #100
mwooldri Dec 2012 #108
underpants Dec 2012 #112
mwooldri Jan 2013 #156
underpants Jan 2013 #157
UtahLib Dec 2012 #107
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #109
Historic NY Dec 2012 #120
Warren DeMontague Dec 2012 #110
defacto7 Dec 2012 #119
justiceischeap Dec 2012 #123
lynne Dec 2012 #141
justiceischeap Dec 2012 #143
heaven05 Dec 2012 #128
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #155
aandegoons Dec 2012 #129
Skittles Dec 2012 #131
sellitman Dec 2012 #132
Buzz Clik Dec 2012 #133
louis-t Dec 2012 #134
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2012 #135
caseymoz Dec 2012 #138
lynne Dec 2012 #140
dutchroll Dec 2012 #144
wordpix Dec 2012 #142
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #149
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #150
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #154

Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:49 PM

1. teabaggers lying... There is a surprise...

or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohio Joe (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:28 PM

27. Good god

These guys will stop at nothing. Simply pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:50 PM

2. I read that as "police action" as in like Vietnam (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:04 PM

5. guards was intentional, the RW thing now is to carp about "elites" having "guards". I learned that

here on DU, where a "Dem" complained about Malia and Sasha having "guards".
You can't make this shit up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:13 PM

50. So then why did the teabagger remove the word?

anything NRA, all day, on DU!

RL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:54 PM

3. K&R. Needs as much exposure as possible.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:02 PM

4. I wish people would realize

that any bunch who feel the need to Photoshop pictures in order to prove a point don't have a point worth proving.

I wish they'd realize they're being conned.

I wish they'd realize they're being robbed.

I wish they'd realize that they're fools only as long as they allow themselves to be fooled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:09 PM

6. This is their new meme, apparently

 

I've noticed the words "Sidwell Friends School" popping up in my Facebook feed a lot lately. Obama's kids are protected but yours aren't blah blah blah.

The tortured, false equivalency logic of the gun nut is easy to deconstruct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Floyd_Gondolli (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:13 PM

7. i get so tired of it.

they still refuse to get it regardless. it's frustrating. all i want to look at is stories of people who are seeing the light. i know they're out there, the numbers tell it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barbtries (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:21 PM

9. It's real simple

 

They care more about their "right" to arm themselves than they do about their country as a whole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Floyd_Gondolli (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:29 PM

12. yea.

sigh. i actually saw an interview with a young man at a firing range asking "why should i suffer" if assault weapons were banned, because he likes going to the range and shooting his assault rifle. he would SUFFER if he had to find something more useful to do with his time! aaargh
see what i mean? frustrating. all the dead bodies from senseless mass shootings, all the wounded and the dead and he doesn't think he should suffer by giving up his gun?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barbtries (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:01 PM

86. I really enjoy 'plinking'.

I've been doing it for a long time. So what did I do for Christmas? You bet, I went and bought a new gun. A rifle for target shooting. Its a single shot. One load, one shot. I bought a high powered pellet rifle. An airgun. Same experience for target shooting. And the ammo is 'cheap cheap cheap' (attribution: Bluth).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barbtries (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:55 PM

92. Why not have those weapons available to rent at firing ranges?

There are lots of ways to compromise that will make people safer. But they don't want to give an inch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #92)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:24 AM

130. i hadn't even thought of that.

it makes too much sense i guess. good thinking

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Floyd_Gondolli (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:59 PM

48. Nope. It's not "Obama's" kids, it's the President's kids. Same thing for the Bush kids out drinking

They weren't protecting the "Bush" kids, they were protecting the children of the President of the United States of America.

It's all about framing the issues with language, folks. Learn how to debug it so that you can counteract it. Learn how it works so that you can use it in your (Democratic Party, issues, and candidates) favor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Floyd_Gondolli (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:41 PM

136. Yes very easy

What a stupid argument. Like right wing nutters are targets like the President might be. They are too hilarious. When Bush was President, the security was fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #136)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:00 PM

137. When Bush was president

He was protected from people attempting to use 2nd amendment solutions, as well as FIRST AMENDMENT solutions.

Remember those "Free Speech Zones" that were located practically in the next county from where Bush was scheduled to speak or make a public appearance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to adieu (Reply #137)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:22 AM

139. Yes and did a single right winger complain about that?

Or the expense of it? Oh no. Nor did they whine about the expense of keeping Cheney in undisclosed locations. Or flying Bush around the country all day on 911.

Right wingers. Their photos are in the dictionary by "hypocrisy."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:18 PM

8. Kinda semantic...

 

Regardless of whether he's a cop or not, the point is still valid.

I think it's good that President Obama has armed protection.

What am I supposed to be outraged by again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:35 PM

14. ... ooookay.

.. do we REALLY need to spell it out for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarchasm (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:58 PM

16. No thank you...

 

I much prefer sarcastic empty comments.

But I really appreciate your offer.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:39 AM

127. Wonderfull line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:06 PM

21. Not really about semantics. I would be more open to the idea of people carrying guns IF

they had even an ounce of the firearms training that man has. Sadly, most gun owners are the same people you see on those 'Worlds Dumbest' television shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:32 PM

28. I'm not really in favor of people carrying guns at all...

 

but to get all worked up over something so lame is just...well, lame.

I also have to disagree with your assessment of 'most' gun owners, all of the folks that have owned guns that I've known (except one) are good, smart people who are either in law enforcement or simply like to hunt or use them for sport.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:43 PM

38. Sounds like you're getting a bit worked up over it considering you've replied 7 times in this thread

Just sayin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:58 PM

47. You are absolutely right...

 

I just wanted to (quickly) point out that it's not particularly deceiving and now I'm apparently arguing in favor of the deception and whatever else I'm being blamed for supporting.

Oh, the tangled webs we weave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #47)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:27 PM

64. Do you really believe

that Photo Shopping a photo in order to make the President of the United States look bad is "not particularly deceiving?" I would be interested in learning how far the Republican, neoconservative, right-wing NRA would need to go for you to find them "deceiving."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #64)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:17 PM

88. The unfortunate thing...

 

is that no one is actually talking about the fact that it's so simple to bolster the argument for these weapons using one simple photograph of our President's plane; they are talking about Photoshop.

To answer your question though...a lot farther than this. Transparency is rarely deceiving.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #47)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:30 PM

65. It is a bit deceiving

By photoshopping the word "police" out, my guess is the intent was to distract from the fact that that person had to go thru a rather extensive background check(s) and years of training. Caption of the changed photo seems to be arguing that since the President can have any John Doe armed with a weapon to protect him, he ought to be able to do so too to protect his family but without the extensive background checks and training.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #65)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:53 PM

74. I can see what you're saying...

 

but it does seem to be a bit of a twisted way to go to come to that conclusion.

I think it was aimed at getting a much more visceral reaction...'Obama is fine with guns as long as he's protected but not us' sort of thing and it does get that reaction. I think they could have gotten the same reaction even without taking out the word police from the uniform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #74)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:00 PM

78. Person could have made the same arguement without photoshoping

Then others would have just agreed or disagreed with his point of view rather then have suspicions raised as to why the picture was altered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #78)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:06 PM

79. Which is why it would have been better just to leave it...

 

because now it takes away from the point of view of the creator of it.

Even though the thing wasn't made for 'us' as an audience, the fact that it was altered is what's being discussed for the most part appeared in the subject line of the OP, and not the point of the picture itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #79)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:22 PM

81. Reminds me of that flap over Bush's service records.

IIRC, there was a big fuss about the copier and that completely overshadowed the original story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #81)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:31 PM

83. My gosh...

 

that is what I've been trying to say for the last 30 posts or so; that it's not the missing words that we should be addressing, it's the idea that it's so simple to bolster the argument for these weapons using one simple photograph of our President's plane.

I never thought such a simple idea would be so difficult to express...probably my fault but still.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #78)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:03 PM

114. No, that person absolutely could not have made the same argument.

Part of the argument is that the person holding the gun "is not engaged in a police action." By that phrase the author implicitly recognizes that the statement "police carry guns" is not a good argument for the conclusion "people who aren't police should be allowed to carry guns."

If the composer of the posting hadn't photoshopped the picture, then he or she would have had to explain why police access to guns was relevant to any point that the composition was intended to support. That would have made the argument substantially different (and substantially less persuasive to the target audience).

This is not just ill-advised (the "because now it takes away from the point of view of the creator of it" of OneMoreDemocrat in this thread). It goes beyond poor tactics and reaches the point of outright dishonesty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #47)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:09 AM

125. Editing, by definition, is deception

"t's not particularly deceiving..."

Editing, by its very nature and definition, is deception; regardless of whether or not one gets worked up over it, or weaves threads from it....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:08 PM

22. The fact that they photoshopped the word POLICE

off of the vest of the armed officer. Not really outraged, just acknowledgment of how shameless the GOP is in trying to win an argument they already lost long ago.

Think you can do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:22 PM

24. Oh, so it's the word 'police' that has gotten you in a tizzy..

 

Obviously anyone who saw that photoshopped picture would have assumed that the guy was just some concerned citizen who happened to be there with an assault rifle and volunteered to protect the President of the United States.

Taking the word 'police' off of the uniform sure does make it seem like he's not an officer. Makes sense. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:36 PM

30. Nice try.

Way to miss the point entirely on purpose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:38 PM

33. For you?

 

Only the BEST !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:14 PM

51. For you, a PPR soon



RL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RetroLounge (Reply #51)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:16 PM

54. Whatevs...

 

If I actually do anything to warrant it, then sure.

Until then...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:37 PM

31. If photoshopping the "POLICE" out doesn't make any difference

Then why do it?

Oh, wait. I know. It's to make a false claim.

Kinda like the "teacher" in Israel who brought a gun to class every day, slung across her shoulder, proving that teachers here in America would be better off if they did the same.

Except she wasn't a teacher, and teachers don't bring assault rifles to class every day, but whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lolly (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:40 PM

35. You have to want to be sincere in asking that question

and obviously said poster was not and doesn't care about the obvious. Waste of time with that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:42 PM

37. Now you're talkin'....

 

Obvious that this guy is a 'POLICE' is exactly what it is !!!!!

You got it !!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:44 PM

39. Nope. You lost the argument - you cannot backpedal now

but I give you an A for trying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lolly (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:40 PM

36. Does it really make a difference?...

 

Would you honestly have been fooled by it?

Would you think he wasn't the 'police' if he wasn't wearing a sign saying POLICE (!!!!!!!)?

Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:44 PM

40. And forget the attempt at deception in 3...2...1...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #40)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:49 PM

41. You again?...

 

But, but, but, I thought you WON (!!!!!!) the argument already.

Anyhow, it would be deceptive if it were actually deceiving and unless you're pretty stupid, it isn't.

You weren't deceived now, were you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #41)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:42 PM

70. Bingo! You just made everyone's point:

The Photo Shopped picture was aimed at "pretty stupid" NRA members and right-wing gun owners, and guess what? They believed that it was a private security guard hired by President Obama carrying an assault weapon, so it worked.

Thankfully, we weren't deceived, as evidenced by this thread, but some of your gun-owning friends may have been. Thank you so much for dropping by to make sure that we are all okay.

Toodles...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #70)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:50 PM

72. Very well crafted...

 

Funny, caustic and all around clever.

Your parents must be so proud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #72)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:55 PM

75. Wouldn't know, as they've

been dead these past 43 years, but I appreciate the thought and the compliments Bubba...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #75)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:58 PM

77. Sorry to hear that...

 

but honestly it was a well crafted zinger.

Most people who only want to insult and hit & runs are far less talented wordsmiths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #70)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:27 PM

145. you stole my ball-bust!

i was maybe gonna mention the legal and mental ramifications of having a pic of a guy with police written on him, and the words 'not police' 2 inches below.

what is wrong with these people?

i was literally trying to figure out where to put what ya wrote, and there you were!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:49 PM

42. Then why did the caption say he wasn't the police?

"anyone who saw that photoshopped picture would have assumed that the guy was just some concerned citizen"

The caption says he isn't the police.


They lied. Both in their presentation AND the caption.

Why defend it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:53 PM

44. Ugh, not defending it...

 

Were you fooled?

No?

Me either.

Pretty fucking stupid to get all bent out of shape over, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:56 PM

46. Bullshit. Yes you were.

"Regardless of whether he's a cop or not, the point is still valid. "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #46)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:04 PM

49. How is it not valid?

 

We entrust our President to be guarded by men with extremely powerful weapons and wouldn't have it any other way.

But it's not OK for people to own less powerful weapons that they are allowed to possess? (until the Bill of Rights is amended).

The photo exposes the hypocrisy that a lot of gun control advocates display...and does it easily...they didn't even have to photoshop out the word POLICE to do it. Kinda like Schumer being very vocal about gun control while having a CCW.

I don't like the fact that people want to own these weapons, but this is a very good ad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:46 PM

71. Schumer is like me

I am against assault weapons, but am for concealed and carry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dirty Socialist (Reply #71)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:57 PM

76. ...and there is nothing wrong with it

 

but it's really easy to point to it and say 'well he's fine with it as long as he's allowed to have a gun'.

That's part of the problem with an absolutest argument, especially where guns are concerned because we can be extremely against assault weapons but then have to acquiesce the fact that they are necessary in some cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:16 PM

80. It's a lie, on several levels; I can't see why you think that makes it a 'very good ad'

First, they took out 'POLICE' to allow them to imply it wasn't a police officer ('not a police action')

Then, they imply that the decision to arm the man was Obama's - when he's actually a British police officer.

Then, they imply Obama gets this protection where the 'ordinary person' doesn't. But the one place in Britain you will regularly see armed police, with guns like that, is at airports, among the public:

https://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=638&q=police+heathrow+armed&oq=police+heathrow+armed

Though, unsurprisingly, visiting heads of state are going to get more intense protection than the rest of us.

If you're happy describing a litany of right wing lies as a 'very good ad', you are, at best, a cynical person who doesn't take sides in politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #80)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:25 PM

82. Geez...

 

It's a good ad because it elicits a visceral reaction.

"Guns are OK for Obama but not for me apparently".

They didn't need to remove the word police, they didn't even have to add the text...it points out a simple hypocrisy and does it well.

I am in fact a cynical person a lot of the time but I am a Democrat through and through, and once in a while I even think for myself and don't see everything the way I'm 'supposed' to.

I am not in favor of assault rifles being used by the general populace, I don't see the need. I don't own any guns and never have.

I only commented originally because arguing about the missing word 'police' misses the point entirely...and then I've found that I am apparently a gun nut and troll and right-winger and liar and stupid...oh and that my post count means I'm from the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #82)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:52 PM

84. No, it's your enthusiastic adoption of NRA talking points that has caused us all to hate you

It is not hypocrisy. That you are saying just what LaPierre has told his followers to say, even if you don't consider yourself one, when it's not true, is what is getting you the "you are a ... " responses.

The visceral reaction is "anyone who thinks this is a good ad can fuck off back to the NRA".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #84)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:02 PM

87. Ah, well...

 

I guess I'll be hated then (for an opinion...on a Democratic discussion board), but it is a good ad that successfully gets it's point across whether you like it or not.

The unfortunate thing is that no one is actually talking about the fact that it's so simple to bolster the argument for these weapons using one simple photograph of our President's plane; they are talking about Photoshop.

NRA talking points? Not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #87)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:41 PM

146. Ah, BULLSHIT!

the unfortunate thing is that you are such a turd, see post #70 from bill.

read it carefully

the word was PHOTOSHOPPED out because there are probably (maybe?) some people who saw it that were smart enough to pick up on the police/not police conundrum, so they LIED to their followers.

this is called PROPAGANDA

stop being so pig-headed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #82)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:25 PM

90. But you're missing the point

that he's a regular police officer that would be there anyway (as anyone who's been through Heathrow would know).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #90)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:58 PM

93. How is that the point?...

 

The point is that no one is actually talking about the fact that it's so simple to bolster the argument for these weapons using one simple photograph of our President's plane; instead, they are talking about Photoshop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #93)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:23 PM

103. So if I was walking through Heathrow

And was photographed with this police officer in the same frame, people could legitimately complain that I enjoyed armed protection while I oppose others having access to these weapons?

That is just silly, and it is no more a good gripe when it is the president - who really NEEDS as much protection as he can get.

You say it is a good ad, but I think it only holds power over those who want to reach a particular conclusion. If it was shown to a group of politically neutral people, I think most would find it the point of it to be ludicrous.

So your adamant assertion that this is a good ad suggests you are a pro-gun zealot, since most of us are more swayed by things that support our own opinions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #103)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:35 PM

105. Being swayed by things that support your own opinion suggests that you can't think for yourself...

 

and I can, and do, and am in this instance.

You are a nobody and as such don't need this kind of protection. President Obama is a somebody and does...and what does he surround himself with? People with ferocious weapons.

Now, if you were a gun owner do you think that phrase 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' would have meaning in this debate at all when you see this photograph (whether there is photoshopping or not), of Obama's plane being guarded by a guy (police or not), holding a ferocious weapon.

OK, so you hear a bunch of saber-rattling about how dangerous these weapons are and that no-one should have even ones that are far less powerful. So, you think...well, it's OK if HE has one but not me; even though I am allowed by law to have one.

This one picture exposes why it is so difficult to have an absolutist viewpoint on this issue, because it's impossible to say there is no need for the weapons when we use them to protect the very gentleman who is saying there is no need for these weapons.

Your adamant assertion that I am a pro-gun zealot suggests you are in fact a giant washing machine with wings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #105)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:16 AM

122. This washing machine with wings says that most people accept

that some groups would always need such weaponry, even if there is an assault weapon ban on the general population. And one of those groups would be those people charged with protecting the president.

Where you and I may worry about a burglar, the president has to worry about assassins, terrorists, and wackos. And MANY of them would like to kill Obama.

Since the threat is so far out of proportion to that faced by ordinary people in their day-to-day lives, only the most paranoid gun zealot would see this as ironic and find it to be a powerful statement. (Thus my suspicion that you are a gun zealot - it's simply logic).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #105)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:38 AM

153. being paid to say things nobody wants to hear suggests you suck

1. OK, so you hear a bunch of saber-rattling about how dangerous these weapons are and that no-one should have even ones that are far less powerful.
2. So, you think...well, it's OK if HE has one but not me; even though I am allowed by law to have one.
3. This one picture exposes why it is so difficult to have an absolutist viewpoint on this issue, because it's impossible to say there is no need for the weapons when we use them to protect the very gentleman who is saying there is no need for these weapons.


1st sentence-
the automatic in the picture is really f'in dangerous, and you seem to imply it isn't, and to imply that somebody wants to take ALL normal handguns and rifles away from your gun bunny friends.
YOU ARE WRONG

2nd-
you are describing the person the picture was intended to dupe, even though bill, a true patriot and veteran, already called you out on it. this is the 2nd time i pointed that out

3rd-
the picture exposes an absolutist viewpoint. absolutely wrong. it actually fucking says "we want LESS LETHAL versions of this gun in our homes is what it fucking says.
and the part after the comma is a truly shining example of monumental Orwellian doublespeak jibberish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #93)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:03 AM

115. Just curious-- Why

woul a pic of the pres's plane be an argument? What would the argument be that the plane pic would convey?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #82)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:04 PM

95. As if he had any say in the matter when it was Heathrow Airport....

and he was a high risk visiting dignitary. Candidate & President Obama had no say over security arrangements made by the Metropolitan Police.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #95)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:12 PM

98. Of course not...

 

When he's in Paris they guard him with poodles, when in Bangladesh, a plate of rice, when he's in Spain sometimes they use sling-shots, but more frequently they just blow bubbles in the face of would be attackers...it's ridiculous to think that President Obama should have a couple of guys with full-automatic weapons to protect him, I mean who does he think he is, the Leader of the Free World or something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:09 PM

97. You are suggesting that people should not be disturbed by the photoshopping of the word police.

That is a back door defense of it. That, along with your confusingly contradictory posts about this matter, clearly show that you are here in this thread to do some damage control.

One might almost think YOU were involved in this photoshopping incident, for all your forced nonchalance.

You might want to keep in mind that people here on this web site are - on average - quite a bit brighter than the Obama haters this photo was geared toward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #97)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:18 PM

101. Oh dear...

 

You most certainly win the award for most ridiculous assumption with regard to anything I've said.

That's pretty cool, you had to work pretty hard to win that one.

If you are 'disturbed' by the Photoshopping work done to the image, then once you figure out that the real discussion should be how with one photo it's so simple to bolster the argument for having and using these weapons, I'm honestly afraid your head will explode in rage and anguish; but, maybe you'll actually discuss it and stop projecting your fantasies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #101)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:26 PM

104. Ok. Then explain how you can prove that this one photo bolsters the argument.

You keep saying it, but I really don't see how this bolsters anything, other than already-held beliefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #104)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:36 PM

106. I just did in response to your calling me a 'pro-gun zealot'...

 

It's down stream somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #106)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:12 AM

117. I finally figured out what your point about the pres's plane

was. I think. Are you trying to say that the plane, being evidence that he is, after all, POTUS, is in itself sufficient justification for armed guards, since only an idiot would think a president doesn't need or shouldn't have such protection, considering the obvious danger of an attempt on his life-- and the impact that would have.?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue37 (Reply #117)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:08 AM

121. That must be it - because that makes a lot of sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #97)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:47 PM

147. nicely said!

he's just a stooge, don't give him that much credit!

did you mean forced, like at gunpoint?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #147)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:45 PM

151. LOL! No, forced as in fake.

Although your interpretation of it certainly opens up all new scenarios! (NRA guy pointing to the computer, DU on the screen, telling the guy to push the NRA talking points. He aims the gun, commenting, "Do it now, and you'd better be nonchalant about it.")

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #151)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:13 AM

152. hee hee!

"Do it now, and you'd better be nonchalant about it.")

now that sounds like a Sam Spade line.

"is that a gun in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?"- Leslie Nielsen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:15 PM

53. It's what they do

defend anything pro gun

RL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RetroLounge (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:18 PM

57. I can only guess you are saying that I am 'Pro Gun'...

 

Unfortunately you are mistaken, but that's probably not a first.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #57)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:25 PM

61. Nice try...



RL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RetroLounge (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:42 PM

69. You know, it is in fact possible not to be in lock step with what you are 'supposed' to think...

 

and think for yourself.

The moment one has an independent thought that others see as 'proof' of being in the other camp doesn't make it so.

It's no wonder that this country is so divided when we can't even be on the same side even when we're on the same side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #69)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:23 AM

118. Yeah, that must be it...

Thanks for setting me straight with your "independent thought" that marches lockstep with the NRA...



RL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #69)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:51 PM

148. why don't you get "lock fingers" and stop typing?

your post sounds like an NRA motto:
think for yourself! think like us!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:06 AM

124. does deliberate deception

bother you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:50 PM

43. The point is not valid.

It is absurd to think that the average citizen requires the same level of security as the president of one of the most powerful nations in the world.

The fact that they need to lie to make such a weak point is quite comedic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedCappedBandit (Reply #43)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:54 PM

45. Actually, they weren't advocating that an average citizen requires the same level of security...

 

Maybe you didn't read the fine print?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:15 PM

52. Oh please.

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedCappedBandit (Reply #52)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:19 PM

58. I will thank you...

 

You too !!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:12 PM

99. Defending the photo again?

It's pretty funny seeing you do damage control in one sentence, and pretend you are not pro-gun in the next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #99)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:22 PM

102. What the Hell are you talking about?...

 

What damage control?

Pretending I'm not 'pro-gun'?

Jesus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedCappedBandit (Reply #43)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:26 PM

63. and it's always the lost post count gunners jumping to their defense

RL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RetroLounge (Reply #63)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:36 PM

67. Yep...

 

Especially those who have been here since 2003.

Spend a lot of time in your namesake do 'ya? Good way to bump your post count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:10 PM

111. No. Because its making a bullshit argument.

COPS HAF TEH BIG GUNS SO I SHOULD BE URLOWED TO, TOOOOOO!!!!!

Sort of like

TEH AIR FORCE HAS ICBMS SO I SHOULD BE URLOWED TO, TOOOOOOOO!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #111)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:51 PM

113. Yep, JUST like that...

 

Thank you for your contribution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #113)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:03 AM

116. Yep.

If the argument wasn't bullshit, why bother to photoshop "police" out?

I'll tell you why: so the weapons fetishists could imagine that it was just some random person with an assault rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #111)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:30 AM

126. Or because the President can authorize nuclear weapons

I should be able to as well-if you want to take it to the absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:24 PM

10. Record threats of violence against this president, his wife and family from raging Right Wing

fucksticks, yet the Insane Right doesn't want that threat countered or defended in any way.

It's all logical if one is on hallucinogenic drugs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:00 PM

17. Yeah! And, he's not trying to take away their fucking

guns..

The homeowners who have guns need to be as trained as those Protecting our President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:17 PM

56. I think most of us here understand that the hard-core right would not shed a tear

for our President. They don't say it aloud, but you can hear it in the contempt in their voices. Sadly, I know people like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:29 PM

11. When do these people read their Bibles? That Ten Commandment thing,

appears to elude them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:34 PM

13. Do they not know the difference between a police op and an ordinary citizen?

Or are they intentionally being obtuse?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:56 PM

15. Gun advocates have an emotional attachment to guns that supersedes truth.

Regardless of statistics, they just want their guns. They love their guns. They will make up any lie to have them. What really interests me is that they often think of guns as protection from the government. Delusional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DaveJ (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:22 PM

59. Yes.

Holding a gun like that makes their penis feel 3 inches bigger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:02 PM

18. Yes but it adequately portrays

how they feel, they think that they have the inalienable right to arm themselves to protect their property from anyone that would come and try to take it away. This entire anti-government mindset is part of the larger problem. They actually beleive that the Constitution gives them rights outside of what the majority of Americans decide. So they feel that they can determine when government has overstepped its bounds and therefore their logic allows them under the second amendment, to protect themselves with leathal force.

Unless we change that mindset we will never win the argument for banning guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:03 PM

19. It is way past time for a new Constitution......n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:34 PM

29. no, no new constution...imagine the RW trying to find Madison

Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Morris or Dickinson in their ranks. Just not a possibility in current politics/national thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to irisblue (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:39 PM

34. True but...

it always seems like when the country tries to adopt some common sense change, it always comes up against the hard and fast rules of the Rightwingers strict constitutional nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:05 PM

20. And this is why the GOP is the party of failure and humiliation.

They have no shame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:12 PM

23. Not surprised

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:25 PM

25. photoshop anyone

oh you mean that BJ my favourite actress is giving is fake? X_X course I wouldn't want to see my favourite stars on a photo doing a BJ.. But many of those photos look real enough

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:26 PM

26. Our President is "Commander in Chief"

so actually it IS a military/police action. So there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:37 PM

32. and the good reason to protect The PRESIDENT

whoever she or he is, that person, is of more value to the world then any keyboard commando sitting in Cheetos crumbs in moms' paneled basement. yes, I went there...
.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:16 PM

55. so let me get this straight, the rightwing nutjob

who photoshopped the image to suit his purposes is alleging that rightwing nutjobs like him or herself have been threatening his family via FB, Twitter, email, phone, text, and snail mail and fired shots at his residence? I know these threats and actions have been made against both candidate and President Obama but I didn't know someone was after this rightwing nutjob.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:22 PM

60. Terrible logic. By that concept, we should all get to have nukes.

Since the US uses those to protect itself, civilians should have them too. Also, rocket launchers too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:26 PM

62. I have nothing against secret service or national guard for every single person in the nation

 

and NO individual can have one then, how about that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:34 PM

66. They would use their guns to shoot the police (NWO thugs to them) so they can't give credit.

Last edited Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Police officers are not known to support military grade weaponry in the hands of the public so they can mow cops down just for fun when they are on the job. The RW photoshop of this photo is so dishonest on so many levels it's nauseating.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:41 PM

68. Lies, Lies, Lies...and more lies...

OH!

And CHRISTIAN too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:52 PM

73. It would be pretty worrisome if somebody who wasn't a cop and not engaged in a military action, was

holding that weapon.

on edit: I'm also curious to know what the makers of that meme were assuming that man's job was. Did they assume he was a contractor? Cause if he was secret service, he would still hold police powers -which would place him under police action. And I'm pretty sure that "protecting the president" also falls under police action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:52 PM

85. Some people apparently don't get it

that the President of the United States of America needs lots of protection- him and his family need WAY more protection than the average citizen. Anybody whom seriously believes that they need an equivalent level of protection needs to seriously re-evaluate their associations, lifestyles, surroundings, etc. The teabaggers posting this sort of c**p also fail to note the irony that the more hate and venom that they spew against him and his family the more protection they'll need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:18 PM

89. If the gun fetishists

ever needed to actually use automatic weapons to defend the country against invasion or insurrection, there would be plenty of them lying around they could take from their enemies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:38 PM

91. People on both sides of the argument are missing the point as per post #80

that the police at Heathrow are armed like this, it's just routine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:01 PM

94. desperate measures from desperate people

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:09 PM

96. The POTUS Lands in England... And He is Responsible for the Security Decisions?

Did I get that correctly?

Not only was the British police officer's vest photoshopped, but this is British security forces, not American ones?

Since when does the POTUS or Secret Service dictate the equipment England uses to protect foreign dignitaries?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:14 PM

100. Anyone who has been in a European airport knows that they carry automatic weapons

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Reply #100)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:53 PM

108. which isn't that many Americans a of late.

I knew the first one was 'shopped right away. The butt of the rifle is hiding the police badge, and whoever altered that photo didn't realist they had missed a few things.... besides just removing the word 'police' from the vest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwooldri (Reply #108)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:36 PM

112. Life inside the bubble. Our weather maps have no weather in Canada or Mexico

My brother noticed that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Reply #112)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 07:32 PM

156. AFAIK national weather forecasts have always been about the nation at hand.

BBC, RTE, TF1, ARD - all show just their national weather. Oh, and btw according to CBC and Environment Canada there's no weather in the USA either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwooldri (Reply #156)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 07:40 PM

157. Thanks I didn't know that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:39 PM

107. FAIL! and an assinine one too. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:04 PM

109. that's a Metropolitan Police firearms officer.

With an H&K MP5 SMG with shoulder stock and reflex sight (it's not an "assault rifle"; the Metropolitan Police firearms unit has those as well, but they're the H&K G36). And it's not fully automatic, it's semi-automatic (the MP5SFA2 variant, "SF" for "Single Fire").

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #109)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:13 AM

120. They have been armed with a like weapon for a number of years..

in the late 80's the Airport detail was armed with these. I recall being a bit amazed at first seeing them. It just became commonplace to see them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:08 PM

110. Right. He's supposed to be just some random dude with an assault weapon.

Classic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:20 AM

119. Same old same old

If they can't make a point with facts and reality, then lie, fake it, and cover up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:19 AM

123. Even if the photo hadn't edited the word "police" out

the guy was still doing a police "action." Guarding the President, no matter whom he/she is, is a police action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #123)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:36 AM

141. Seems to be confusion as to definition of "police action" -

- and guarding someone is not a "police action", even if you're the police. Being an oldster, I remember the term from when it was used to describe the Vietnam War.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/police%20action

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lynne (Reply #141)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:10 PM

143. Yes, I'm familiar with the way every one else describes it

but we are talking about wingers. They're a bunch of morans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:33 AM

128. "less lethal"?

Fully automatic or semi, a bullet is the lethal quotient here. God, these wing nuts are so insane with fear of their own government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #128)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 03:02 PM

155. doesn't that sound like something from Orwell's 1984???

BLAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:36 AM

129. I get these emails from time to time.

Usually take time to rebut them. Now when I do I include the statement that nearly every right wing email I get from you has some sort of distortion or outright lie. Why do you think that is? What makes someone so unsure of their position that it requires a distortion or lie to make it palatable. Snake oil? Maybe you should rethink your position.

I get on less and less email list as the years role on. It's a double win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aandegoons (Reply #129)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:06 PM

131. have you noticed

how many otherwise supposedly intelligent people pass that shit along when ten seconds of research on the web would tell them it is crap? It confirms my belief that wingnuts simply WANT to believe what they are being told, regardless of truth or logic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:55 PM

132. Bookmarked for use later

That would be if one of my friends sends this to me via email or FB.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:24 PM

133. This is NOT rightwing only phenomenon. We have many DUers just like this.

It's no less insane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:34 PM

134. What are they blathering on about today?

Another faux outrage? It must suck to spend your life being outraged about EVERYTHING.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:40 PM

135. They also resent a white guy guarding a black guy....

....they consider him to be a traitor to his race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:11 PM

138. This is exactly what they do to statistics.


They will tell the little lie just to get you to believe the rest of what they do. Unfortunately, if there's many of them telling little lies to convince each other, it probably means much of the factoids they believe are bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 06:29 AM

140. Uh, he's still not participating in a "police action" -

- by guarding someone even if he is a member of a police force. Doesn't matter if the word "police" is or isn't on his vest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lynne (Reply #140)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:27 PM

144. "Not participating in police action"? What, he's just having a cup of tea with the missus is he?

He is actively guarding the President. That's police action. Just like being pulled over on the highway is "police action". He is on duty, and watching around for any security threats, and that is why he is carrying a big gun.

If he were standing there watching the football, then yeah, you might be right in saying he's "not participating in police action". Taking the kids to school? Yeah, not "police action". Going to the bathroom? Sure, not "police action".

That is a very poor argument to justify why the photo was altered to remove "police" from his vest and then stating that he is not involved in police action. The deliberate deception in an attempt to make a political point is pretty obvious to most people here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:55 AM

142. these lying repukes will say anything to cling to their guns, money and legalized bribes to Congress

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:00 PM

149. they should have photoshopped military out, too..Commander in Chief? um

i'd think guarding the top guy, the commander in chief of the us armed forces, kinda sounds military in action!

isn't it funny how they only read one half of one line from the constitution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:19 PM

150. oh my!

from their FB: (gun rights)
Mission
Spread information about the Second Amendment(one fucking sentence?), and the inalienable right to self defense.
Description
We support the Right to Bear Arms. This does not just apply to the United States, but it also applies to our brothers and sisters in foreign countries who may not have such right. The Right to Bear Arms is more than just owning a gun for hunting, or sportsmanship; it is the inalienable right to self defense. End of Discussion.


there are actual people on that site spouting the same shit as here?!?!?
i looked for like 2 minutes and i'm nauseous..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 03:00 PM

154. K&R

not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but that picture says

"less-lethal version"

so you want a less lethal gun to protect yourself...riiiight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread