Trump humor


Recommended Posts

I received this offline. I didn't have time to mess with it, but now I do.

It worked out OK that I delayed, but oddly enough, now that NAFTA will be renegotiated at the request of the leaders of Mexico and Canada, the cartoon kinda lost its edge.

What's missing, I wonder?

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reason to lump Canada’s PM with those two guys and it is in disturbingly bad taste . . . and thought. Trudeau is a decent sort and the other two are monsters. It’s like the left putting Hitler, Stalin, and President Trump in the same photo as co-evil. Not worthy of the wonderful land of O’.

I think Annie Oakley Coulter should have showed up at Berkley just for laughs and to make a point. “Hey, you dipshits, I’m here to enroll in AgriScience!”

Peter     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Peter said:

There is no reason to lump Canada’s PM with those two guys and it is in disturbingly bad taste . . . and thought. Trudeau is a decent sort and the other two are monsters. It’s like the left putting Hitler, Stalin, and President Trump in the same photo as co-evil. Not worthy of the wonderful land of O’.

Canada's prime minister Justin Trudeau is evil. He wants to eventually make telling the truth about Islam illegal. It starts with something that seems harmless and has little meaning, M 103, not yet a law. If not stopped it will evolve into a law. Ex Muslims warn about this. They know how it starts and how it ends. Canada is going the way of Germany. When we lose freedom of speech, it is near the end.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Not if Canada is next to the United States.

--Brant

stupidity has its limits

All a Canadian need do is step south of the 48 th parallel.  Then he is free to speak or write. It is Good to have the First Amendment to our Constitution.  Being able to speak, write and associate peacefully  is more important than having the right to keep and bear small calibre fire-arms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

All a Canadian need do is step south of the 48 th parallel.  Then he is free to speak or write. It is Good to have the First Amendment to our Constitution.  Being able to speak, write and associate peacefully  is more important than having the right to keep and bear small calibre fire-arms. 

You don't have that "right" in New Jersey.

One of the reasons I moved out.

You are comfortable there.

BTW, what are "small calibre fire-arms"? And large "calibre"?

You think I don't know you are dumping on rights? There's a reason you hardly ever mention them: morality is the basis of rights as in morally right actions.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant asked, “BTW, what are "small caliber fire-arms"? And large "caliber"? end quote and spell checked to eliminate Brit spelling.

Small: 410 shotgun. Large: 12 gauge and I once handled a 10 gauge which I believe may only be used by law enforcement so maybe I dreamed that. What a kick.

Hand gun. Ladies dainty. Then you go to 38 and the Dirty Hairy 357 magnum. And it the military they use a 45. You really need to have a grip on the 45. It rides up. 

Small rifle: 22. Large: it depends on the size of the deer or elephant. I would go with the 30 ought 6 because it personifies fire power. If you shoot targets with it don’t forget the noise cancelling headphones or you will be deef and dump for a day.

Military? I have a personal fondness for the M14.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

You don't have that "right" in New Jersey.

One of the reasons I moved out.

You are comfortable there.

BTW, what are "small calibre fire-arms"? And large "calibre"?

You think I don't know you are dumping on rights? There's a reason you hardly ever mention them: morality is the basis of rights as in morally right actions.

--Brant

No 105 recoilless for ordinary people.  Also no Howitzers, long cannon, bazookas and flame throwers.  No tanks,  no armed aircraft, no bombs and no weapons of mass destruction for private citizens. 

The right to keep and bear arms extends primarily to the kind of arms the Founders had. You have a legal right to keep a small caliber < 50 cal weapons that can be aimed and be used primarily for personal defense.  Heavy weapons  of military grade are not included (by the Courts) in the scope of the second amendment.  

So for the "gun nuts"  the kind of weapons the military use are not included in the scope of the second Amendment.  Hear me "gun nuts"  Your weapons are not sufficient to overthrow  the government.  A revolution can be ended in ten minutes by a squadron of Warthogs  firing electrically operated Gattling Guns that shoot depleted uranium  slugs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

No 105 recoilless for ordinary people.  Also no Howitzers, long cannon, bazookas and flame throwers.  No tanks,  no armed aircraft, no bombs and no weapons of mass destruction for private citizens. 

The right to keep and bear arms extends primarily to the kind of arms the Founders had. You have a legal right to keep a small caliber < 50 cal weapons that can be aimed and be used primarily for personal defense.  Heavy weapons  of military grade are not included (by the Courts) in the scope of the second amendment.  

So for the "gun nuts"  the kind of weapons the military use are not included in the scope of the second Amendment.  Hear me "gun nuts"  Your weapons are not sufficient to overthrow  the government.  A revolution can be ended in ten minutes by a squadron of Warthogs  firing electrically operated Gattling Guns that shoot depleted uranium  slugs. 

You might be wrong about flame throwers.

The right to bear arms referred to the biggest stuff they could get their hands on back in those days. Logically that should still obtain. That right to bear arms is not any primary right, however, but derivative from the right to self defense.

You are completely wrong if you think the founders were thinking small caliber/large caliber. They were thinking large caliber. Today they'd think differently seeing all the shit that's around.

The citizenry can't stand up to the military. Getting the military used against the citizens is what's hard to do. Eisenhower did it at Little Rock, but no shots were fired.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

You might be wrong about flame throwers.

The right to bear arms referred to the biggest stuff they could get their hands on back in those days. Logically that should still obtain. That right to bear arms is not any primary right, however, but derivative from the right to self defense.

You are completely wrong if you think the founders were thinking small caliber/large caliber. They were thinking large caliber. Today they'd think differently seeing all the shit that's around.

The citizenry can't stand up to the military. Getting the military used against the citizens is what's hard to do. Eisenhower did it at Little Rock, but no shots were fired.

--Brant

Eisenhower was enforcing a Supreme Court decision.   The 14 th amendment extended the reach of the Bill of Rights to the States. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba’al wrote: A revolution can be ended in ten minutes by a squadron of Warthogs firing electrically operated Gattling Guns that shoot depleted uranium slugs.

An early machine gun with multiple barrels firing in rotation is called a Gatling Gun with only one ‘T.’

Godzilla with a ten foot thick, armored exoskeleton makes sense, but something that gets my goat, are monster movies like King Kong where bullets penetrate his hide but it just ticks him off. Anyone care to explain what would really happen to a very large mammal if shot with a 50 caliber machine gun bullets hundreds of times?

Peter 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Has anybody noticed that this thread is called "Trump Humor"?

:evil:  :)

Michael

That's what you get for posting that unfunny cartoon.

Take some responsibility.

--Brant

verbal justice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

All right, all right.

Here's a different one I found bopping around the Interwebs. Not super-funny, but cute.

04.29.2017-23.17.png

:)

Michael

The left wing  Progressive Pinko-Stinko  Commie Loving America Hating Liberals  are having an existential crisis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This isn't exactly about President Trump, but it does show how he left the Democratic Party in shambles. They can't even keep the damn flag in place on national TV. :) 

Note, Jimmy Dore is a hardcore progressive, so this is not the right-wing bashing the left.

:)

Michael

A very amusing accident.  I laughed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Now that Donald Trump is President Trump and is doing his thing the way he is supposed to (despite people still getting it wrong), I saw a meme today and, remembering everything on OL that flared up about Trump, a poignant throb swelled in my heart:

05.07.2017-12.44.png

:)

Michael

I hope Trump's "thing"  is wrecking the government,  or at least wrecking the Democrats.  That is why I voted for him....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now