Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

-more Trump Satire...


Recommended Posts

:lol:

Military Refuses to Participate in Trump’s Parade, Citing Bone Spurs

(The Borowitz Report)—The Pentagon has turned down Donald J. Trump’s request for a grand military parade in Washington, D.C., citing a sudden outbreak of bone spurs that would prevent men and women in uniform from participating.

Harland Dorrinson, a Pentagon spokesman, said that, within an hour of Trump’s request, more than a hundred thousand military personnel complained that they were suffering from acute cases of bone spurs that would make marching in such a parade a painful ordeal.......

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/military-refuses-to-participate-in-trumps-parade-citing-bone-spurs?mbid=social_facebook

 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 3/4/2018 at 1:21 AM, jakeem said:

Alec Baldwin's impersonation is getting better all the time.

And you have to give him more credit than past presidential imitators because the current occupant of the Oval Office has been saturated over the media like no other, plus digital media didn't exist for most modern presidents.

Therefore, Baldwin's interpretation is going to be more scrutinized and therefore has to be more exact.

His voice is so good--I can hardly tell the difference.

 

The only thing I can compare his performance to would be the Polish actors in the classic film by director Ernst Lubitsch, " To Be or Not To Be " when they are trying to pass off one of their colleagues acting as Hitler, as the real Third Reich fuhrer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Randy Rainbows latest is called "Kids", honoring the Parkland Florida high school students who are leading the assault on gun control.

The performance is a satire of Paul Lynde's Bye Bye Birdie song, "Kids".

 

***Warning: NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch also appears in this video.***

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

Randy Rainbows latest is called "Kids", honoring the Parkland Florida high school students who are leading the assault on gun control.

The performance is a satire of Paul Lynde's Bye Bye Birdie song, "Kids".

 

***Warning: NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch also appears in this video.***

You don't find it ironic that the main things the 'kids' have helped accomplish is to profile themselves as being too immature to have a gun until they are 21?     

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two Saturday Night Live sketches. The first should be amusing to those tired of the Russian investigation. The second for fans of "sleepy" Ben Carson. Both are parodies of shows I don't watch, but I chuckled at both.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

You don't find it ironic that the main things the 'kids' have helped accomplish is to profile themselves as being too immature to have a gun until they are 21?     

Human beings are way too immature period.  No matter what the age.  The "kids" are just smart enough to realize that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2018 at 1:54 PM, Princess of Tap said:

Randy Rainbows latest is called "Kids", honoring the Parkland Florida high school students who are leading the assault on gun control.

The performance is a satire of Paul Lynde's Bye Bye Birdie song, "Kids".

 

***Warning: NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch also appears in this video.***

assault on gun control?....

 

oookay.

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

Human beings are way too immature period.  No matter what the age.  The "kids" are just smart enough to realize that.

I don't understand what point you're making here,  especially the 'no matter what the age' comment. 

Because if the age doesn't matter as it relates to guns,  what the 'kids' helped accomplish (raising the age to purchase or own a gun),  would be dumb. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I don't understand what point you're making here,  especially the 'no matter what the age' comment. 

Because if the age doesn't matter as it relates to guns,  what the 'kids' helped accomplish (raising the age to purchase or own a gun),  would be dumb. 

He's saying that semi-automatic weapons/assault-style weapons should be banned for all age groups, and that the young people know this even if their elders refuse to admit it.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

He's saying that semi-automatic weapons/assault-style weapons should be banned for all age groups, and that the young people know this even if their elders refuse to admit it.

 

Isn't that the same point I'm making?  that this age restriction is just window dressing and does little to nothing as it relates to reducing future shootings and the number of deaths and injuries in shootings.    

The FL bill does have some meat to it but not this age restriction (unless age does matter as it relates to misuse of a gun especially for those 18 - <21).  

As for what 'their elders' think:   you live in Florida - will signing this bill help or hurt him Scott in his bid to be a US Senator?     I.e. did A- rated-by-NRA Scott give just enough to not lose pro-gun-control voters,  but not too much to lose too many anti-gun-control voters.       OR are both sides unhappy?       

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Isn't that the same point I'm making?  that this age restriction is just window dressing and does little to nothing as it relates to reducing future shootings and the number of deaths and injuries in shootings.    

The FL bill does have some meat to it but not this age restriction (unless age does matter as it relates to misuse of a gun especially for those 18 - <21).  

As for what 'their elders' think:   you live in Florida - will signing this bill help or hurt him Scott in his bid to be a US Senator?     I.e. did A- rated-by-NRA Scott give just enough to not lose pro-gun-control voters,  but not too much to lose too many anti-gun-control voters.       OR are both sides unhappy?       

So are you saying that unless a total ban is enacted, partial bans or age restrictions mean nothing? I don't agree. This is set to address school shootings, not any of the other mass shootings Americans love to commit, and most if not all of the school shooters are under 21. The way the law is now, anyone with a gun under 21 isn't an immediate red flag, whereas under the new law cops will have the power to stop and question any persons that look under 21 seen with a firearm, either at a firing range or any other place they may "practice". Yeah, they can still get one illegally, but now being seen with one will be an alert, whereas previously it wasn't. Small steps, but that's the way things usually get done in a society. 

As for Scott, I would never vote for that crooked, weasly POS regardless of whatever attempts he makes to try seem moderate for the election. He's running against Bill Nelson, who has been in office since 2000. However, as of 2018, he is the only Democratic statewide elected official in Florida. Floridians are like most every other voting group: party members will vote for their party 99.9% of the time. They just look for the letter next to the name, a "D" or an "R". Independents are usually just that in name only, and they tend to vote for one party most of the time. In other words, we know both candidates well enough that our minds are pretty much made up already, and regardless of what a poll says, there aren't too many undecideds.

Bill Nelson who has an "F" from the NRA. Scott had an "A-" from the NRA before this bill. I'm sure it's lower now, but I don't know if it's an "F". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

So are you saying that unless a total ban is enacted, partial bans or age restrictions mean nothing?

I don't view the age restriction as necessary due to the mental health parts of the new FL law;  i.e. that the age restriction isn't very likely to prevent a person 18 - <21 from proceeding with a shooting,  that the mental health criteria isn't already designed for.     

But there are a few loop holes with the mental health section so maybe this addition age restriction will reduce shootings by young adults.   (one being that one has to be mentally unstable AND make a credible threat).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I don't understand what point you're making here,  especially the 'no matter what the age' comment. 

Because if the age doesn't matter as it relates to guns,  what the 'kids' helped accomplish (raising the age to purchase or own a gun),  would be dumb. 

 

Keeping it out of the hands of MORE human beings is a good thing.  It is a start.  You are just being argumentative. My point was clear.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Keeping it out of the hands of MORE human beings is a good thing.  It is a start.  You are just being argumentative. My point was clear.

I assume a Federal court will find the age restriction to be unconstitutional since it clearly is an infringement on the rights of these adults to own a gun.    While it might be constitutional to have age restrictions on the ownership of certain type of guns,   a total ban of ownership of any and all guns,   is likely to be unconstitutional.

 

  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month 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
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...