The "Bowling Green massacre" is a nonexistent incident referred to by U.S. Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway in interviews with Cosmopolitan and TMZ on January 29, 2017, and in an interview on the television news program Hardball with Chris Matthews on February 2, 2017. Conway cited the "massacre" as justification for a travel and immigration ban from seven Muslim-majority countries enacted by United States President Donald Trump. However, no such massacre ever occurred. Conway later said she meant to refer to the 2011 arrest of two Iraqi refugees in Bowling Green on various charges including "attempting to provide material support to terrorists and to al Qaeda in Iraq."
@nemestrinus , basically this event never happened but was referred to by one of the presidential advisors as something that did happen
@nemestrinus , I had never heard that story until now. Thanks for teaching me something new.
@nemestrinus , there actually was a Bowling Green massacre, in the 1600's Dutch immigrants killed a bunch of natives
@nemestrinus , two Iraqi refugees were arrested for supporting ISIS and committing acts linked to terrorism. While she was wrong in calling it a massacre, it would also be wrong to ignore that a couple Iraqi refugees proved to be terrorists, which is what the suspension is about. Don't fight dishonesty with dishonesty.
@Oujosh29, my comment literally states that she "meant to refer to the 2011 arrest of two Iraqi refuges in bowling green on various charges including attempting to provide support to terrorists and al qaeda in Iraq" how am I fighting with dishonesty?
Get the politics off my funny pics. :(
@Akjankins, Seriously. This pic isn't even politics lazily disguised as a joke like most political pics. It's jut garbage.
@Akjankins, thank you I agree
@Akjankins, theyre not even attempting to make it funny. There is no joke in this picture whatsoever.
I really appreciate how Funny Pics slides in a few political jokes given how crazy our president is. But that could just because it's a liberal political pic for once...
@Akjankins, I'm ok with politics that are funny. This is just political for the sake of being political. Not slightly funny
Too much politics in my funny pics
I couldn't agree more about exploiting the bowling green massacre. I died there and it's disrespectful to my memory.
@payton manning, rip bowling green. #NeverRemember
I know people don't want politics in funny pics but these are issues we can't really ignore. Unless we discuss these things we will never reach any sort of understanding which means no solution will be found. I'm not saying we as a community can solve everything, but we should be able to have a civil discussion about this stuff so we can understand the issues better when talking about it outside of the community.
@Robin the Tactician, then hop on Facebook or Tumblr. Leave this off of Funny Pics.
@Robin the Tactician, this is not the place to discuss this. Like Rogue said, go to Facebook or Tumblr, not Funny Pics
@ Seductive Cheeto, some people are unable to escape these issues. Just count yourself lucky that you are not one of them.
@Robin the Tactician, important topics but this is a funny pictures app it doesn't belong here.
@Robin the Tactician, the issue for me, and probably many others in the community, is that we are bombarded with this stuff all over the place. It's all the news talks about, it's all Facebook talks about, it's everywhere. Sometimes you need a place to escape it all and laugh. These posts are ruining my space to actually be remotely happy instead of terribly, terribly concerned about the future of America
@Robin the Tactician, I talk about this enough with my family who is hell-bent on saying my political opinion is wrong in every way, I come her to escape such prosecution and to laugh instead of have a mob tell me I'm wrong and always will be and only they are right
@REAPEROFSOULS1179, it's called the real world, poor thing.
@Half Black Man, tfw there are literally people on funnypics complaining about needing a safe space
@RustyFapwagon, the day has come..
@Half Black Man, Pathetic.
@HiroAntagonist, how so? I can fell your anger seething
@Half Black Man, That must be your half anger you're feeling. Bigotry is always pathetic.
@HiroAntagonist, how was I being bigot? And sure, cupcake. We'll go with that
@Half Black Man, You mocked him because you disagree with his personal opinions, equating his viewpoint with fantasy and your own with the only acceptable reality, then patronized him. That's called bigotry.
@Half Black Man, It's pretty amazing, whenever you see two people try and debate, if you will, any sort of political topic, certain key words come out, often depending on their political standing. Conservatives like to go with "cupcake, pvssy, libtard, etc." while liberals default to "bigot, racist, nazi, etc." Can also be found with feminazis (the terrible vocal minority) using terms like "sweetie, honey, etc." It really would be nice to see a conversation that didn't have to resort to one or more sides talking down the other through these attempted insults on the character, rather an attack on the topic itself. But I doubt we will consistently see that in the future
@HiroAntagonist, no, that's not bigotry. Bigotry is intolerance towards another opinion. Nor is it what I was doing. You've assumed things here about information that was never given. He stated an opinion about his situation and I said that's the real world. It's called constructive criticism. Thanks love. Educate yourself
@Half Black Man, Or, and I might be crazy here, you're just using potentially vague statements to try and recover from being called out. Either/or, really. Have a good evening.
@SkizleDNizleS, while I'd have to agree, it's also just my persona. But perhaps there's a little truth in the words, no? I certainly find it to be true at least sometimes. Stereotypes don't appear out of thin air, yanno. I'm trying to imagine Kenpachi reading that off to me lol
@SkizleDNizleS, I'm not certain if you were referencing me with the "bigot" drop or not, but if so it's mistaken. I'm not a liberal, nor a conservative. I took the partially colored fellow to be liberally attacking a conservative fellow, but even if their sides were flipped it still smelled of textbook bigotry to me. Seeing anyone being attacked for their opinions, whether I agree with them or not, is sad. And also the actions of a bigot. That's all I was pointing out.
@Half Black Man, Kenpachi wouldn't be quite as verbose, moreso stabby stabby. But i know what you mean. I'm not exactly looking to target anyone here, but whenever I decide to take a stroll through the cancer known as Facebook, anything political is just muddled with what I had just talked about. Almost to the point where no intelligent discussion takes place due to the shjt-slinging by both sides, it'd be nice to see more fleshed-out conversation. But like I said, seen more on Facebook, that's why it doesn't hold a candle to this community.
@HiroAntagonist, Nah, not exactly a target, moreso me trying to point out the disparities seen with a lot of political discussion nowadays. Not going to repeat what I just typed out in the other comment, but with me just simply replying and bringing a POV that can be observed for both sides of the spectrum, I'm already seeing a lot more explanation being brought behind ideas. I'm just tired of the shjt-slinging that's seen everywhere else. I know the FP community is capable of much more than that
Just an fyi no one, and i mean NO ONE who is not a citizen of the United states have a right to be here nor do they have any protection under she constitution.
What a stupid thing to say. You know what dictators do? They shoot judges that dare to oppose them. Trump raging about shows how far we are from a dictatorship and that our checks and balances are working.
Only Obama had a similar travel ban, and it is 100 percent legal and constitutional for the president to ban or stop immigration of any group of people for any reason for any length of time. Speaking of fear mongering, here's this guy trying to say that our current president is a dictator and is gonna subvert the judiciary branch. Hypocrisy rampant.
@Puppy, this is the same guy who got shut down by that military man about blm too.
@Puppy, it's only hypocrisy if you let it ;) if you have a president who is fear mongering, is the public supposed to shut up about it and not complain. At what point is a complaint about a complaint for going to be defined by the rhetoric of the former? There has to be a line and you're deciding to not draw it for the sake of attacking and opinion you disagree with. At the end of the day we can both agree whether you like him or not that he has a valid point to make about a situation that is concerning.
@Puppy, Title 8, Chapter 12, US code 1182, subsection (f)
@Puppy, trump hasn't done anything unconstitutional or infringing on American citizens rights. Only trying to protect the rights and lives of actual citizens. Yet he's apparently a dictator subverting the judiciary branch. Sure.
@Puppy, he is discrediting federal judges that have ruled against him. I don't know of any other way to subvert the judiciary
@Puppy, even his own Supreme Court nominee has said what he's saying is wrong
@VibratingButtChomper, god damn I wish there was an edit button, I could barely understand my own typing.
@Fun Facts 101, I believe you're talking about Don Lemon, worst journalist of the year (2014), not Trevor Noah (who is completely unfunny in my opinion). If you're talking about the interview with Sheriff David Clarke that is
@Puppy, I completely agree that what trumps doing isn't racist or beyond his power. People just whine too much when they lose, and before anyone calls me a radical conservative, I voted Clinton
@HSA, there is nothing wrong with what Trump is doing, every president does it. Obama called out the Supreme Court overturns citizens United during a state of the union address right in their faces. So yeah, trump being mad over a highly liberal/politicized branch of the judiciary that gets overturned all the time isn't something to care about.
@Oujosh29, I don't see where you get "highly liberal/politicized" from, the first judge was appointed by Dubya with a unanimous Senate confirmation
@HSA, was talking about the 9th Circuit.
@Puppy, the only legal issue with the ban is that it gives preference to "minority religious groups" which means Muslims will be put off. That goes against freedom of religion
@Oujosh29, Richard Clifton, also a unanimously confirmed Bush appointee
@Puppy, no, he didn't. He didn't have a ban. He restricted the number coming in with "extreme vetting". Refugees still flowed into the country. Do research first
@HSA, and? Bush also appointed Robert's who voted for Obamacare twice. Doesn't change how liberal the 9th Circuit is.
@TheWhiteWolf, but the "minority religious groups" are being hunted and set on fire in those countries. That gives them legitimate reason to flee.
@Oujosh29, the court ain't liberal just because you don't agree with its rulings either
@RustyFapwagon, but if you're from syria trying to escape an oppressive regime, the one that was found out to have hanged 13,000 in a 4 year period for non-violent protest, too fvcking bad try somewhere else? C'mon of this was seriously a humanitarian issue we wouldn't block the people at the greatest risk of being killed
@TheWhiteWolf, when the large majority of refugees leaving the area are men between the ages of 18 and 27 then I say absolutely try somewhere fvcking else. The Mudslimes ruined their chance when they turned every European country the immigrated to into a violent crime ridden haven for rapists.
@RustyFapwagon, Like Sweden where you can't even say that the people committing the crimes there are middle eastern.
And one of their cops got called racist and got into a lot of trouble because he started talking about how so much of their crime is done by middle eastern people
@HSA, no, they're objectively liberal because of their constant rulings that are liberal. This isn't some personal opinion, it's fact.
@Oujosh29, no, they're objectively non-biased because of their constant rulings that are non-biased. This isn't some personal opinion, it's fact.
@RustyFapwagon, that's what I've been saying. Too bad people are too small minded to look at facts and statistics, and instead let arbitrary, bullshjt emotions ruin their judgment. Truth and logic is apparently frowned upon and labeled as racist
@Puppy, maybe, just maybe, the bigger issue isn't Trump or Obama, but the political system and the government entirely? The nation has become a system run by the very wealthy on the backs of the poor and dwindling middle class. What's worse is they have expertly crafted arbitrary dividing lines and even managed to convince the middle class that the person holding them down isn't the ruling wealthy class but the poor class. Trump doesn't give a damn about you or me, just like Obama didn't give a damn about you or me. They both killed innocent people, Obama (and I'm sure Trump will too) created terrorists with his many botched military actions, then they want to blame those terrorists on religion when really it is their own greed and stupidity. Sorry for the long post
@HSA, incorrect. The 9th Circuit is objectively liberal based on their rulings. Just like we can say Clarence Thomas issues opinions in a conservative fashion and ginsburg is liberal. You're denial of it doesn't change anything. Go ahead and Google it.
@LawyeredApe, Islamic principles created terrorism. They've been around longer then the US has as a country
@RustyFapwagon, if that's what you have to tell yourself. Pretty sure many of the more recent ones are probably from Obama killing their sister/cousin/son in a failed drone strike
@LawyeredApe, toplol when the Quran has over 20 passages saying it's OK to kill and enslave "Infidels" or any non-Muslim and that it's OK to break the commandments of Allah when dealing with Infidels then I'm going to bank on the "not muh religion" feefees being bullshjt and the objective facts and evidence actually being representative of the religion.
@RustyFapwagon, don't get me wrong, I absolutely abhor all religions as well. If the world were a better place there would be no Religion. Similarly Christianity has been used for BS too
@LawyeredApe, "been used". While true, Christianity hasn't been a cause of global terrorism for a long time. The worst Christian terrorists are the Westboro people who are just annoying. Now a days there are dozens of Islamic terrorist groups around the world, and they've proven to hide among refugees to get to the west. And why so much defense for the judiciary, like they are so unbiased and reverent? Hate the suspension all you want, legally the president has authority to do it. The courts ruled base on them not liking what trump did, not based on the law.
@Oujosh29, actually Trumps executive order probably is constitutional. At least based on how the constitution has been interpreted at the moment, but that can change as it always has. My argument doesn't have anything to do with Trumps actions as of right now, my argument was simply that the government has been very broken for a very long time. However I recognize what you are saying as your concerns, my only reaction is that I sure wish it were as easy as many people try to make it seem. If we actually could wiggle the issues down to 1 underlying problem with 1 easy solution it could probably get solved pretty quickly, but that's not really how a complex system of rules, checks, balances, and varying thoughts work
@Puppy, cannot believe this has 27 likes vs 9 dislikes. It is ABSOLUTELY NOT 100% legal and constitutional for the president to ban or stop immigration of any group of people for any reason for any length of time. Trump's ban aside, what an idiotic statement and unreal that so many people seem to believe that.
@LawyeredApe, key word there is HAD. Every other major religion progressed. Islam is still a cancer that plagues people all over the globe.
@Blue Shirted Guy, where did you get that from? It's perfectly constitutional for the President to ban immigration as he sees fit. He's in charge of it.
@Oujosh29, I don't understand how the shjtlibs can act like this is totally unprecedented. Pretty much every president in the last 30 years and even some from before that have had some kind of travel ban at some point.
@Oujosh29, No it is not, which is why "national defense" has historically been used as validation for immigration bans in order to make them constitutionally legal. The president can't just do whatever he wants regarding immigration, especially if his actions infringe upon the rights of US citizens and other foreigners (with US ties) who are affected by the ban. Instead of summarizing, I'll leave a link to a NY Times article that at the very least disproves the statement that started this thread.
@Blue Shirted Guy, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html
@RustyFapwagon, I don't think you understand how the law works. Big difference between "some kind of travel ban" and Trump's travel ban. Not even arguing about the legality of them, but you act like it's all so simple
@Blue Shirted Guy, I can link you to sources that shows how it is constitutional as well, doubt you'll care. The US has a long history of suspending immigration of groups for whatever reason, as some have mentioned even Obama has done it (for those trying to say it's not tell same, bs, it's the same). Non us citizens have 0 constitutional rights to come to the US.
@Oujosh29, I would care, and I'm not trying to argue the constitutionality of Trump's ban. That's extremely complex and could go all the way to the Supreme Court, so it's moronic for us to form conclusions. Regardless, you're off topic, I was arguing that it's also moronic to claim that any immigration ban is 100 percent legal and constitutional. Bans can also affect non-us citizens
@Blue Shirted Guy, sorry, us citizens, not non-us citizens
@Blue Shirted Guy, The only way the ban has affected US citizens (at least what I've noticed, I may be proven wrong) is with protestors going to airports and delaying people from getting on their flights or getting their bags for a long time.
@Blue Shirted Guy, you are correct that a president can't ban a US citizen directly. However, I disagree that this case is that complicated. The Constitution and law clearly gives the president control on immigration issues (non citizens). The judges have ruled based on them not liking what Trump did, which is BS. Their judge was to rule based on the Constitutionality of it, not for them to go "eh, I don't like what he did. Denied." Personally I think the judiciary has proven they have been out of control for a while, not based on this case.
@Blue Shirted Guy, it is worded loosely and was rolled out poorly but that is its only flaw. In my opinion every Mudslime majority country should be permabanned from the US after the shjt they started pulling in Europe
@ archiethesailor, for future reference don't use infowars (which tried to force (quite seriously) that Obama was a lizard man) or .uk sites as sources. They typically aren't trustworthy
@K2S0, What you're saying is that united kingdom news sources aren't reliable for news going on in Europe? Are you denying that either of these things are true or are you just disliking the sources?
@K2S0, infowars redeemed itself this last election season by posting real things no one else would. They were cancer in the past but they're changing what they're putting out because of how shjt they used to be. Paul Joseph Watson actually writes some pretty good stuff.
@ archiethesailor, .uk stuff is usually incredibly left biased. Maybe that's what he means?
@RustyFapwagon, I think they tend to be, but this article wasn't supporting a leftist agenda, or at least didn't seem to be. I figure a left news source giving the story would help give credibility to what I said in the eyes of the left.
@RustyFapwagon, it hasn't redeemed itself because most of the sources it has (when it cites them) aren't actual studies or are just flat out incorrect. Run of the mill .uk websites (such as dailymail) tend to be the same way.
@K2S0, depends on who writes the article. As I said Paul Joseph Watson writes really good articles and provides legit sources.
@Oujosh29, Just pure ignorance. How can a common individual look at a case that may be reaching the Supreme Court and tell themselves "eh, not that complicated." The president is given control, yes, but not FULL control. There's a big difference. Again, not even trying to discuss this specific ban! You keep going off topic. The whole point was to disprove the original dumb statement, which applies to ALL bans
@Commandshark, not saying whether this specific ban did or didn't affect US citizens. I am saying that an immigration ban has the potential to, which makes enforcing one constitutionally and lawfully complicated. It is not as simple as what the original statement implies
@RustyFapwagon, that is a HUGE flaw for an executive order of this magnitude, and extremely irresponsible. Again, it doesn't matter. As all 3 of the responders have failed to do, stay on-topic.
@Blue Shirted Guy, it's not ignorance, it's an opinion. I don't think it's complicated; the president has vast powers to control immigration and it's been done many times in the past.
@Oujosh29, it is ignorance. NEITHER of our opinions, specifically regarding the constitutionality and legality of the order, have any meaning whatsoever. We are not experts in this field, so this executive order is 100% complicated to us. You think Trump's legal counsel is going to go to court and say "your honor, this isn't complicated. The president has vast powers to control immigration and it's been done many times in the past." No, because it is not even remotely close to being that simple. To think otherwise, as you do, is pure ignorance.
@Blue Shirted Guy, So, you don't know anything about what you're talking about, and we don't know anything about what we're talking about, but what you're saying is 100% accurate, and what we're saying is 100% ignorance, even though none of us know anything about anything?
@K2S0, Just so you know: .uk just means it's a website from the United Kingdom. While daily mail.co.uk might not be a reliable news site, I believe bbc.co.uk might be seen differently.
@HiroAntagonist, yes but uk websites are notorious for these type of "news" sites. But bbc is a great source
@K2S0, I'm 99.99% confident you can find far more extremist/blatantly false/clickbait news sites using .com than .uk, but whatever floats your goat, brother!
@HiroAntagonist, What's the difference between my main point and Oujosh's? His is that he thinks an executive order possibly going to the Supreme Court is simple to understand and form a conclusion about. Mine is, considering that we aren't experts on the constitution and/or law, the executive order is too complicated for us to fully understand. NEITHER of us have the education necessary to understand the legal complexities of the order, but only one of us is ignorant, because only one of us believes we can form an accurate conclusion on the subject. None of this even has anything to do with my original comment, because nobody stays on topic
@HiroAntagonist, and also you didn't even say anything, so I'm not calling you anything unless you believe that you fully understand the constitutionality/legality of the executive order like Oujosh. Which is just silly
@Blue Shirted Guy, Well, I mean, you're having trouble staying on it yourself. You're statement was that "it is NOT 100% constitutional and legal" for him to halt immigration. Then later you talk about how you're not an expert and don't know anything, and how everyone else doesn't know anything and that makes them ignorant, but not you because they're making definitive statements which you would never do except for the very first thing you said.
@Blue Shirted Guy, I'd say I understand it about at least as well as you do. Possibly more since I'm a law and history buff, and also Google and Wikipedia aren't that hard to work.
@HiroAntagonist, to summarize. I am 100% accurate because I am claiming to have constitutional knowledge below that of the actual judges and lawyers debating the order, while you guys are saying things like "it's not complicated" and "the president can ban or stop immigration for any group for any reason at any time". Those statement are 100% false, my statements are 100% true
@HiroAntagonist, I can't stay on it because I stupidly respond to statements that are off topic, I'll admit that. However, you're taking those 2 statements by me out of 2 different topics (why I shouldn't be arguing on an app). I don't need to be an expert to know that first statement, but for the topic about the legal complexities of the executive order, I do need to be an expert.
@HiroAntagonist, my original point on this thread was just responding to the statement by "puppy". If you can use google, you'd know that he is 100% wrong. I then stupidly responded to various people who brought up Trump's executive order specifically, which had nothing to do with anything (at first)
@Blue Shirted Guy, "I'm right because I know I don't know anything." That's actually the first time I've heard that. But hey, since you don't know anything, maybe you can take a read at some of the anything I don't know as provided by OP way on up top. Title 8, chapter 12, US code 1182, section F pretty well defined the rather broad reasons the president can halt or slow immigration. I mean, I'm no expert, all I can do is read. But that would seem, to me, to indicate that maybe it's not 100% something he can't do...
@Blue Shirted Guy, It kinda bounced all over, yeah, but the theme seemed to stay with that "none of us know anything but I'm right" kinda theme, so kudos on your absolute conviction to believe in your infallibility based on things you admittedly don't know or understand. That's ballsy.
@RustyFapwagon, your ignorance is astounding. Do you even know what the Crusades were?
@Psyknis, a response to the Muslim crusades that started 400 years prior.
Do you even know what the crusades were?
@HiroAntagonist, the first topic had nothing to do with that theme, that was simply false. I just find it amusing that you think you have extensive knowledge on the constitutionality and legality of the executive order because you can google. Like it's that simple. Wow, guess the 9th circuit didn't see that clause! You should educate them. My entire point was that unless you've been heavily educated, you can't have a valid opinion. Which is true. Do you understand now?
@RustyFapwagon, when the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, asked villages to join his movement or pay extra taxes?
@RustyFapwagon, or are you talking about the anti-Muslim, pro-Christian version where he slaughtered people by the hundreds?
@Blue Shirted Guy, I don't think that. Never said I did. The other circuit isn't the final judge of constitutionality anyway. They ruled how they ruled. It doesn't change Puppy's statement, which is that there is legal backing, and refutes your statement, that there is not. Where he provided a source, you provided self-proclaimed ignorance. Is it as simple as a single part of the law? No. But that single part of the law does show that there is, in fact, a basis, which means that you, dear one, are mistaken on at least that one point.
However! Since I've not been heavily educated, my opinion isn't valid. But, then, you're admittedly less educated than I, so your opinion is less valid. Which puts us in complete agreement!
@Psyknis, and then if they didn't he murdered shjtloads of people and conquered tons of land?
I'm not sure if this is bait or youre retarded.
@Psyknis, yeah, the Christian version. You know the one that has walls of evidence supporting it happening?
Don't try to defend you're regressive ideology. The west is done with your shjt. You want to make a difference? Prove me wrong and start a global Muslims against radical Muslims movement.
@RustyFapwagon, there is one. It's the part of the predominantly Muslim Asian and African continents where more than, I'd say about 95% of Muslims abhor the radical branch of Islam that twists the holy Quran's words and forge passports from New Zealand anyway.
@HiroAntagonist, when did I ever say there was no legal backing? What are you talking about? That source does not prove that it is "100 percent legal and constitutional for the president to ban or stop immigration of any group of people for any reason for any length of time". Does it? I claimed ignorance regarding SPECIFICALLY the constitutionality and legality of the executive order. That is for heavily educated judges to decide, we aren't heavily educated judges. You still don't understand
@Psyknis, then there's the one where they tried to push into Europe and got shjt on by the Christians.
Also let me make a correction for you. The Quran isn't holy. It's a decent into madness with an Imperialistic pedophile at the reins.
@RustyFapwagon, and your Bible are one big acid trip, your point?
@Psyknis, lol "my Bible." All I'm doing is stating facts. I never claimed allegiance to a religion. Nice straw man.
@RustyFapwagon, no reason to disrespect anyone's faith. That's just too low man. It's one thing to not agree or to believe, but to disrespect is just plain rude. Have fun, I'm off to play some Destiny.
@Psyknis, Well, Jesus never took a nine year old to bed with him.
@RustyFapwagon, Looks like I came into that right at the end.
@Psyknis, wrong. When an ideology is as flawed and fvcked up as Islam continues to prove itself to be it deserves to be persecuted at every available angle.
Shjt effort on your part to prove anything otherwise. Bring a better argument next time.
@ archiethesailor, with points that shjt I'm surprised he didn't bail sooner.
@RustyFapwagon, Maybe he didn't realize?
@Psyknis, also to refute the one point you tried to make with the statistics you made up
Really though truly trash effort.
@Puppy, you really need to review Obamas laws yourself
@Blue Shirted Guy, dude, you're being a hypocrite. We've both given our opinions and you've said yours just as strongly, but you're magically not ignorant because reasons. No, we both have our layman opinions on this subject, and it's obvious were not experts otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this on funny pics. Stop telling people "this is for the judges to decide". They will, we know, places like this is for the ordinary person to talk about stuff. Don't want to read it? Don't. But either way stop being over dramatic.
@Oujosh29, sigh, you still don't understand. There were 2 topics on this thread between us. The original statement and then specifically the executive order. The original statement from this thread is false. That is why I provided the article. That part had nothing to do with opinions, because you can't have an opinion on that original statement. It's either true or false. I mean, it's silly to think it is true, but I didn't bring up ignorance until the second topic. Regarding the second topic, the executive order, THAT is what I was saying you guys were being ignorant about. Specifically because you said it was not complicated. Then HiroAntagonist jumped in for some reason and didn't realize there were 2 different topics. You guys still don't seem to realize that I originally tried to stick to only the original statement until people responding brought up the executive order specifically
@Oujosh29, Ever heard of the Lord's Resistance Army? Fun bunch.
Why in the world is this on here? What goat whore uploaded this and what spawn of feces approved it?
@Rogue Hobo, wow I hate your opinion and now feel the need to argue with you! It's time to D-D-D-D-D-DUEL!
@VibratingButtChomper, I accept your challenge.
@Rogue Hobo, Its uploaded my stuckpixel you moron
@Awesome Naked Taco, I was just reading how this community has gone to crap. I guess you're the reason.
@Rogue Hobo, maybe they thought it was funny?
Well, this isn't very funny... it's rather serious if you ask me
Trevor Noah isn't funny and his ratings are awful. I can't wait until they kill the show off.
The real problem here are the people that blindly follow someone based on their affiliation with a party. This is the same shjt that conservatives would be saying if Hillary got elected. And its the same shjt that people said about Obama when he got elected. Yeah he wasn't the best president (Obama care was a terrible idea) but he also wasnt the worst. Worst case scenario Trump doesnt get anything done (like Obama) and then everything stays the same. Best case scenario is he does get some good things done and we're better off as a whole for it. This all would have turned out the same regardless of who won the election it just would have been the opposite side
@Assassinator2399, also if no one has known this, the judiciary branch of the government has the most power out of the 3 branches. So if it loses a little bit of power then that's actually not a bad thing since it'll bring things back into balance. Hell if you dont believe me, take into account the Supreme Court. They make decisions based on their opinions as well as the constitution and any decision they make immediately becomes law. They could literally destroy the entire country with one decision if they were corrupt enough.
If you're looking for understanding, Trevor Noah, Jon Stewart and John Oliver interviews are great to watch.
@VibratingButtChomper, lol probably the best joke so far. Sure hope you were being sarcastic.
@VibratingButtChomper, Trevor Noah needs to find his own style and stop trying to be the next Jon Stewart
@Oujosh29, not likely, honestly, I don't like president Trump's policy choices too much, but what is truly unpalatable is his opposition. If they're the alternative to president Trump, we truly dodged a bullet when Hillary Clinton lost
The left loves attributing motive and inflating situations.
Isn't he supposed to be funny?
The only politics that belongs on this app or Joe Biden Memes
StuckPixel, this app is called "funny pics". Give us some funny pics, you fųcks.
@StuckPixel ok seriously? At least all the other political pics I've seen thus far, although weren't popular, had some kind of joke or humor behind to classify as a funny pic, but this? This is just straight up politics, no funny. Shame on you. Get this shjt out of here.
This ain't funny! Get this political crap off of FUNNY pics
"Safe spaces are stupid"
"Get politics off my funny pics"
Lolololololol FUNNY PIC!
F'kn clown shoe
Bowling Green : we must never forget, and we WILL rebuild! 😜
@Suicide Squad Sucks, this is the fundamental failure of the Left, can't see the forest for the trees, and are easily distracted by silly things, for all the noise about how smart they think they are, they've certainly dropped the ball with this round of politics.