Over 58907
politifake

Liberties Politics


Liberal Hypocrisy -


TAGS: liberal hypocrisy obama bush ndaa patriot act liberty civil liberties privacy spying ndaa irs liberals progessives
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

DebtToAmerica - January 27, 2015, 7:00 am
Tyranny is a bipartisan initiative


I TOLD YOU, BARACK - the war on terror lets you REALLY screw with civil liberties!




"It happens to me" -


TAGS: obama stolen liberties freedom hard earned money
Rating: 4.88/5

More politifakes by OTC

OTC - July 24, 2013, 5:15 pm
Who doesn't? I don't, in fact, late last night I saw some people who had car trouble and I offered help because they didn't look like gang bangers, they looked like normal people in need of help, and yes, they were black
Renza - July 22, 2013, 7:58 pm
Who doesn't, I mean look at the posters the fundies have been putting out lately, that's all they're about.
Renza - July 22, 2013, 7:54 pm
That's such a ridiculous question fox, with such impressive powers of observation and understanding, you should already know the answer. Clearly its the most dangerous known race around.
foxrecon19d - July 22, 2013, 7:03 pm
"side note, people with pants around their knees aren't that threatening, they're very easy to nock over." And which race might you be refering to, Renza? Which race threatens you so much that you have to make such a statement, Renza? Bigot much, Renza?
OTC - July 22, 2013, 5:52 pm
so you base decisions on color of skin and not how people carry themselves regardless of color? interesting
Renza - July 22, 2013, 5:42 pm
Just answering fox's question, if a decision is derived strictly from the ethnicity of nearby individuals it means its racially biased, nothing more. side note, people with pants around their knees aren't that threatening, they're very easy to nock over.
Renza - July 22, 2013, 5:39 pm
About as sharp as usual fox, comparable to the level of a bubble. At least you're finally accepting Obama as a deity, its a good first step, I'm sure even a grunt can figure out how things work sooner or later.
foxrecon19d - July 22, 2013, 4:30 pm
Aww. Look! Renzahead's faith in his god, Barack Obama has utterly failed him. His silence confirms that his propaganda has failed. So, Renza. Your move...heh...heh...heh...
foxrecon19d - July 22, 2013, 4:26 pm
By the way, Renzahead. Why have you stopped making posters that love all over your God, Obama? C'mon, Renzahead. Love on your god Barack Obama.
foxrecon19d - July 22, 2013, 3:58 pm
Renza, how much of an idiot are you? How many white people are in a Chicago ghetto? The people your beloved God Obama are refering to ARE BLACK! Renza, you are truely f***ing things up for your Democrat gods
OTC - July 22, 2013, 11:36 am
I wouldn't be afraid if a gang Erkels were in the vicinity, but I would be if a gang of white people with pants at their knees and hats on sideways, so whats your point renza?
Renza - July 22, 2013, 11:03 am
If your reasoning is a miscellaneous (ethnicity) person in the general vicinity, then yes, it would be.
foxrecon19d - July 22, 2013, 7:46 am
So it's racist to lock your car door in the Chicago ghetto?


HOW STRANGE - Republicans didn't give a half of a shit about civil liberties when Bush was taking them all away......


TAGS: conservative republicans civil rights liberties
Rating: 3/5

More politifakes by Cannabal

Doggit - January 17, 2013, 9:40 am
Good point
Cannabal - January 16, 2013, 11:29 pm
Yep, we're f***ed.
JGalt - January 16, 2013, 11:11 pm
And Now democrats do not!


SECURITY THEATER - Beats the dating scene




PROMISE? WHAT PROMISE? -




WHAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF BIG GOVERNMENT? - You might be a Liberal if you said small government. The answer is BIG Liberty




YOU JUST CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP! - Handing out US Constitutions gets you two things: 1: director of cultural center says you look like a white supermacist group 2: A black Panther threatens to exercise his 2nd amendment rights on you.




WAR ON WOMEN? - How about his War on America?




FOURTH AMENDMENT - You wouldn't have to worry about home invasions if the police didn't have any legal excuse to bust down your door.




militarism -




GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS - "...the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." ~Job 1:21


TAGS: civil rights liberties gun control
Rating: 2.5/5

More politifakes by Cannabal

Renza - April 3, 2013, 8:06 am
...On top of that, these restrictions that are so hated are less likely to continue or get pushed through if people come up with alternative - effective - options for trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and violently insane people.
Renza - April 3, 2013, 8:05 am
While I can understand 'gun enthusiasts' not liking restrictions on various things, to a**ume that the government as a whole is trying to take away guns based on the idiocy of one or two really is just ridiculous paranoia...
PapaFox - April 3, 2013, 7:19 am
Paranoia much?
RonE - April 3, 2013, 7:04 am
BTW, there are whole slew of people, organizations, and politicians trying to take guns away. Have they done it yet? Not completely but they are chipping away fast and furiously. (like that political hypocritical play?).
RonE - April 3, 2013, 6:07 am
You said no one was trying to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. You are incorrect. Just because SHE did not get it done. Does not mean the are not trying to do it. And they will succeed. Largely because of people like you.
PapaFox - April 3, 2013, 6:05 am
And did her words result in anything like legislation to take guns away? No. So get rid of that ridiculous Strawman.
RonE - April 3, 2013, 5:52 am
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!" - Diane Feinstein Tell me again how no one is trying to take my guns again. This is just one of many.
RonE - April 3, 2013, 5:50 am
You cannot be serious PapaFox to actually believe that. removal of rights has gone from "registration" to limiting purchase to limiting "ammo capacity" to the mantra of removal all guns from private citizens. Only cops and government should have them.
PapaFox - April 3, 2013, 5:36 am
Except that nobody is trying to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.
RonE - April 3, 2013, 5:18 am
Using god to defend gun rights is exactly how anti gun activist intend to take and are making removal of those rights possible. Punish everyone for the sins of the few.


BILL OF RIGHTS - So........What have you Republicans done to preserve this doctrine as of late, besides nothing?




CONSERVATIVES - The Sheriffs won't violate our Second Amendment rights; but they can go on ahead and violate the rest of them


TAGS: republican conservative civil liberties rights
Rating: 1.89/5

More politifakes by Cannabal

Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 3:56 pm
Still waiting for your proof that I committed copyright infringement. Bro.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 3:48 pm
Now that is simply not true: because the law is always supported by an ignorant majority as well as staunch acolytes much like yourself.
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 3:45 pm
Great language. Seals the quality of your character. Create? Is that what you call sticking words on other people's ph**os? I simply asked you to provide proof of unconstitutional actions. Your ignorance is a greater threat than any law ever could be.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 3:36 pm
Why yes, I am great, f***ing awesome, in fact, as opposing to a malingering twat such as yourself who likes to criticize because he can't create himself.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 3:32 pm
I still have to work for money like everyone else. You're really gouging the bottom of the barrel here, dude. If you don't like my poster, feel free to vote it down, and I'll await your first papers accusing me of copyright infringement, mm'kay?
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 3:30 pm
I use my time as I see fit. And it has been enlightening to see how ignorant you truly are. Not only about our legal system but also about life in general. When you can argue your case well...come find me. (Btw, you're here too so you must be a great ...)
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 3:30 pm
If you're so d*** great, why you wasting your time here, and not fighting that evil, evil socialist-communist policy called "Obamacare." Perhaps if you work for-profit, you might be more motivated to get the job done, I'm sure.
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 3:28 pm
We are not rich by any stretch. In fact I bet you make more an hour than I do.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 3:28 pm
Oh, you're a pro-bono lawyer, no wonder you have so much free time to come onto a image-posting site and argue with an armchair propagandist like me. You should probably find a more productive line of work, dude.
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 3:27 pm
How much work would you do because you believe that what you are doing is right and just? How Much pro bono work do you do??? Yet I'm the parasite.
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 3:25 pm
Can't deal with your own issues still? Parasite? Maybe you don't know how constitutional legal councils work, so ill explain it to you. 98% of the cases we take are pro bono. (As in my firm not I get paid at all, even if we win)
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 3:22 pm
Now who's the angry one?
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 3:21 pm
First off I'm not your bro. Secondly, anyone who questions my love of country and liberty gets the brunt of my anger. Lastly, classy way of using ignorant slang.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 3:21 pm
"Plagiarism and ignorance," huh? You'll accuse me of that, yet look the other way when Battaile does it? Since you are a lawyer, why don't you file a suit against me for copyright infringement and see how far this goes, you fascist parasite.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 3:19 pm
umadbro?
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 3:18 pm
You are the armchair activist who sits back and makes posters based on ignorance and skewed opinions. My love for country is signed in blood while yours is posted in plagiarism and ignorance.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 3:18 pm
Oh, you're a lawyer now, why I had no idea. In fact, I bet you work for NORML, too, an organization which has been fighting the draconian drug policy of the Drug War for about 40 years now. But since it does not fit your narrow view, I doubt you do,
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 3:17 pm
I actually voted for Ron Paul and completely disagree with the current administration on many issues. I sir have served 2 tours in our military, shed blood 3x from enemy fire, and seen many of my friends die in combat. Don't question my love for liberty.
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 3:15 pm
Now I'm illiterate? Why the name calling? I simply want you to prove to me that you are correct about their being something unconstitutional about this situation. If there is, I will champion it from my firm through the 10th circuit all the way to DC.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 3:14 pm
Wow, I had no idea how much you hated freedom and liberty, man. You clearly are an Obama voter.
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 3:13 pm
A drug raid took place, people were arrested, taken to trial, a plea was entered and then the case heard by a judge and jury of peers. Don't break the law and you have no problems. Want the law changed, follow the process to have it changed.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 3:11 pm
I have explained at length my position, I can't be faulted if you insist on backpedaling, deflection, and illiteracy, in addition to your morally absolutist and legally dogmatic perspective on government charters and public policy. That's my retort.
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 3:11 pm
You claim violations yet have not produced one iota of proof for your claims other than you don't like it, which in your mind seems to make things unconstitutional. Laws are in place for a reason. If you break them you are punished.
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 3:08 pm
It is obvious that you are not capable of having a logical conversation without being rude. My interpretation of the constitution rests with the justices of that court. You claim unconstitutional actions yet I see no rulings. This is my support.
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 3:06 pm
Was he on the Supreme Court when he wrote this? No he was not. Again. Please stick to task...it seems you are trying to cloud the original issue I took with your poster as it refers to the constitutionality of arresting people for violating drug laws.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 3:00 pm
informed interpretation of the Constitution yourself, in general or in direct relation to the issue currently being discussed. Your lack of substantial contraposition, if not an act of adamant trolling, is certainly an act of persistent retardation, sir.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 2:59 pm
I have been backing up my arguments, you're the one using the wimpy deflection of calling my arguments "emotional" when I have made plenty of citations, which, by the way, outnumber yours. You rely heavily on Supreme Court opinion without making any.....
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 2:58 pm
In Robinson v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not illegal to be a drug addict, ergo, you can ingest any substance you want. The opinion was maintained in "Powell v. Texas."
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 2:57 pm
The quotation marks that you have been using? You use them sometimes. Sometimes you only use one set. Again with the personal attacks. Why? I'm simply asking you to back up your argument and your words yet you resort to attacks of my person.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 2:54 pm
Oh, you want cases. Well, why didn't you say so, man. Here's the ruling by DEA Judge Francis Young on the reclassification of weed: http://www.ebeneezer.net/ritual/vegetable/jyp2.html
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 2:52 pm
Sir, I am well aware of the process of law and the system in place in this country. And yet you again try to change the subject. Where are the cases that these have been reviewed and found unconstitutional? No need to be rude, just answer the questions.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 2:51 pm
I know the quotations marks are small, but they are there. Methinks you need Obamacare to get an appointment with an opthalmologist or an optometrist.
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 2:50 pm
None of these arguments you are making speak to the constitutionality of the issues you originally raised. You are not answering the questions but are throwing other things into the mix.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 2:50 pm
You seem to forget that Congress makes the laws, and just as well, can repeal them, whereas the Supreme Court uses their power of "judicial review" (called "judicial activism by conservatives) to test the application of laws.
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 2:48 pm
And his title is Czar? Or is that a word you are using to show disdain for an individual? His title is Director. Why are you so angry?
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 2:46 pm
Here's a report on the consequences of mandatory minimum sentences to Congress. http://www.ussc.gov/Legislative_and_Public_Affairs/Congressional_Testimony_and_Reports/Mandatory_Minimum_Penalties/199108_RtC_Mandatory_Minimum.htm
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 2:46 pm
Again. You are talking about a commission. I can put one together and have the evidence show anything I want it to. The end result sits with the seated justices of the Supreme Court.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 2:45 pm
Here's a story where a house was invaded by a SWAT team which failed to take into account that it was the mayor's house. http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-07/justice/mayor.warrant_1_dead-dogs-cheye-calvo-trinity-tomsic?_s=PM:CRIME
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 2:44 pm
The "Drug Czar" is the head of the Office of Nat'l Drug Control Policy. Maybe if you looked up the name "Gil Kerlikowski" you might've found it.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 2:43 pm
your argument. If you indeed read the Schaffer Commission report, then you'll remember the final conclusion being that cannabis (marijuana) is such a benign substance, that it does not make sense to have harsh penalties for it. As for concrete examples...
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 2:43 pm
I've never said that the obamacare program was unconstitutional. Just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. And the word Czar. Interesting that I can't find that position listed anywhere. Maybe that emotion is creeping up again
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 2:41 pm
agree with "Obamacare," you fail to make any substantial arguments on how the PPACA legislation is genuinely bad (apart from the posters on this site). You're no different from the Supreme Court in cherry-picking lines from the Constitution to a**ert.....
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 2:40 pm
Oh, it's okay to disagree on Obamacare, but not drugs. Your moral absolutism fails to explain why the laws have worked when in fact, by the admission of the Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowski of the Obama administration is failed. And for someone who doesn't.....
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 2:30 pm
So based on your argument only violent criminals should be jailed? If SWAT is used on a raid, they have a warrant issued by a seated judge who found enough evidence to issue said warrant. How did they circumvent a jury? They are arrested first. Then trial
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 2:28 pm
Each of the items you have listed have been heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court and upheld. Find cases where there is something showing differently and you can have some weight to your argument. You argue with emotion not logic.
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 2:26 pm
The bible is in no way the foundation for our constitution. It's roots derive from the code of Hammurabi. This is where all laws originate. Just to say you don't agree with something doesn't make it unconstitutional.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 2:04 pm
minimum sentences, which in turn lead to protracted imprisonment for non-violent offenses (8th), for an act that is not exactly prohibited by the Constitution (9th). Do you believe that the Bible is the foundation of the Constitution as well? Probably so.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 2:03 pm
Oh, I need to spell it out for you? Comment #50199 not good enough for you? 4th Amendment which is violated with violent SWAT raids initiated on faulty tips; the circumvention of due process and jury deliberation (6th and 7th) by the use of mandatory....
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 1:59 pm
I do not agree with Obacare or generalized health care in any form. I do believe there is a need for insurance reform but not in the method it was presented. I have read the commission. Supreme Court trumps commissions. Still waiting on your amendments.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 1:56 pm
Hmmmm, is that the same Commerce Clause that makes Obamacare technically legal? You wouldn't happen to be against that, would you? Furthermore, you wouldn't happen to be aware of the Schaffer Commission report on drugs from the 1970's, yes?
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 1:56 pm
Still waiting on you to make your case for the amendments you listed.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 1:55 pm
If this image was copyrighted, then it wouldn't have gotten past the moderator. But this was okayed by the moderator, that's probably because this is an archival image, as is the nature of the site it came from. Or do you still wanna b**** about it?
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 1:54 pm
Also, if you'd like to look at Ashcroft v. Raich (2005) you will see that the Supreme Court upheld the argument under the commerce clause the government has this power. The Commerce Clause is from article 1, section 8, clause 3. You should read it.
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 1:51 pm
Cute. So "I stole it because I couldn't find a reason not to." Classy.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 1:45 pm
I just attributed the source of this pic in this very thread, and I refuse to be held responsible for the lack of watermark or explanation of origin for this ph**o, which is an inquiry you should make to the hosting site. My posters are FAIR USE.
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 1:41 pm
So what you are saying, just so I am clear, is that a professional news firm does not copyright their ph**os or their articles? That's a first! I'm still waiting on your reply to the amendment violations you claimed as I read the article and found nothing
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 1:41 pm
make the Drug War a good thing, especially when programs like "Fast & Furious" are used to fight the Mexican drug cartels, and incidentally arming them at the same time. And let's not forget the U.S. gov't's fomentation with Iran-Contra.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 1:40 pm
Pardon me, but should not you be enlightening me on how the Controlled Substances Act is perfectly Constitutional, Mr. Constitutionalist? Because I don't see how violent SWAT raids, mandatory minimum sentences, forced drug rehab, inquisitorial tactics....
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 1:35 pm
Excuse me, but this image is not copyrighted, and if you want the address for it, here ya go. http://www.news-graphic.com/news/top_story/article_a940566e-9377-11e0-819c-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=image&ph**o=0
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 1:29 pm
Please show how each of the amendments you previously stated were violated as I'm sure you are a constitutional scholar and have specialized in defending clients in constitutional violation cases many times over.
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 1:28 pm
Oh...I see. So you plagiarized an article and gave no citation for it or the image and posted it as your own work; yet I am the dumbass. And the last time I checked violating a drug law was still illegal.
Cannabal - March 20, 2013, 1:21 pm
This was taken from an article about the sweeping drug arrests done by a county sheriff, which is an unfortunate aspect of the war on drugs, as it ignores the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments, not to mention the the 9th as well, dumbass.
TheConstitutionalist - March 20, 2013, 1:16 pm
Interesting. It appears that they are executing an arrest and thus using due process. What rights are being violated here? Or is anyone being arrested having their constitutional rights violated?


STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS - Legal fundamentalists on the Supreme Court who base their legal policy on a select few words and phrases of the Constitution.


TAGS: gun control civil rights liberties
Rating: 1.89/5

More politifakes by Cannabal

Cannabal - January 23, 2013, 8:32 am
Holy ****, you're regular intelligence a***yst, man. I bet those false WMDs claims didn't fool you one f***in' bit.
foxrecon19d - January 23, 2013, 8:26 am
In other words, you can't justify the epic fail of your own poster, so you go crying off on a tangent,feel 'enlightened', then curse others for not being as 'enlightened' as you. Meanwhile, this poster still says you are an idiot. Don't that just sting?
foxrecon19d - January 23, 2013, 8:26 am
Actually, PF, Cannabal is just posting posts until my posts fall off the bottom of the page so that no one can read them. His way of supporting free speech...heh...heh...heh...
PapaFox - January 23, 2013, 8:12 am
Don't forget that the military is under civilian control. For example (forget his name) a certain general was sacked a few years back after making public statements about Islam being an evil religion, or words to that effect.
Cannabal - January 23, 2013, 7:54 am
These days, the military has become an increasingly right-wing establishment which runs on the philosophy of Christian dominionism, and this wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the constant wars for resources the U.S. keeps waging.
PapaFox - January 23, 2013, 7:52 am
Now now, don't a**ume that everyone in the military is a right-wing nutter. A lot of well-known Democrats have served in the military too, like Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Inouye, Glenn and others. In the military, political views run the gamut.
Cannabal - January 23, 2013, 7:39 am
And your comment is proof about how much you and the NRA hate free speech and every other Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which you proved that you can't even read, but you are a military man,so I'm not surprised about your illiteracy.
foxrecon19d - January 23, 2013, 12:48 am
In other words, you can't justify the epic fail of your own poster, so you go crying off on a tangent,feel 'enlightened', then curse others for not being as 'enlightened' as you. Meanwhile, this poster still says you are an idiot. Don't that just sting?
foxrecon19d - January 23, 2013, 12:48 am
Ooohhhh... look at the tough guy who thinks that by cursing he can cover up the fact that his poster still makes him look like an idiot!! HA! HA! HA! Whatcha' gonna do, tough guy, TYPE LOUDER??
Cannabal - January 22, 2013, 7:50 am
Let's try again: No Establishment clause means "freedom from religion." Okay, am I going too fast? Next idea: the same Supreme which approves of gun ownership also approves of "Obamacare" and Citizens United. Did you construe any of that, you c'unt?
foxrecon19d - January 22, 2013, 7:17 am
In other words, you can't justify the epic fail of your own poster, so you go crying off on a tangent,feel 'enlightened', then curse others for not being as 'enlightened' as you. Meanwhile, this poster still says you are an idiot. Don'e that just sting?
Cannabal - January 22, 2013, 3:16 am
Oh, you are so right about how pesky facts: like how the No Establishment clause separates church and state; also that same Supreme Court which favored Obamacare favored Citizens United and Obamacare. Now don't that just sting, m**********r?
foxrecon19d - January 21, 2013, 8:40 pm
Said the guy who still cannot find separation of church and state in the Constitution...BTW, the Supreme Court of the United States already ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies the right to individual citizens to keep and bear arms. Facts are pesky things


The US Constitution -




PREV PAGE