Political Rants

this is just a rant, as most of my things have been lately, but if they take our guns away what is there to keep the government in check?

Magico had his chance, i kicked him

By my call to change your writing style, I merely called for you to change your non-supported, meaningless style to one with more class and flair. Need I clarify any more?

Now then, on to the article I was meaning to write. The government, as it is now, has some very large problems with it now. It does too much meddling in people's private affairs (for example, the NSA (yes, I know you're reading this)). It restricts people too much in their pursuits of everyday life (through throngs of meaningless laws, which we all know exist). And above all, it steals our money (or at least will in a few short years)! But what needs to be done? Do a few minor changes need to be enacted, or does the entire Constitution require a new drafting? Talk of the Articles of Confederation in A.P. U.S. History got me thinking about this, and I believe that the government could be overhauled well by requiring that only people of obviously high intelligence could run for office (in more ways than just IQ, if that's what comes to mind). This way, feebs with money could not run rampantly powerful as we see is the case today. But now, to pass the ball: What do you all think about this important issue? Let's hear!

Die Biznitches Gunfire sound here

It happened to me again today. Those idiots in my gym class tweaked out on me, I wouldn't be surprised if the "specially abled" (thank you very much PC-thug A. Gross) girl was the smartest one in the whole class. I was playing well and though they were allowed to do it themselves I was one again forced out of the gray area. Even my own traitorous team turned on me. Two people especially chewwed my head off when a had had enough of their abuse and said no. What is it that the feminazis say no means no, right. They threatened my life, the nerve. I eventually moved to avoid a riot, and commented that I must Intimidate them. They had to hold one goth girl back. Where has justice gone in all rights I should have been able to Grossdance in any color area I wished. Who can I sui for this gross in justice, whatever I'll just bo it tommorrow.

To the Glorious Donat of Oz
Can't we all just get along
To Gross
I may have not made this clear I meant that the libs think that the 2nd ammendment is outof date and from a time in which they were needed to fend off wild beasts not that they actually were. As you and I know many things that the libs believe are wild fantasys unbased in any form of fact what so ever. Secondly when did I say I laughed at the "specially abled" person. I did not laugh that was more of a chuckle. And my verbosity offends your humble personage, I say perchance a real feeb were to be traumatized by my petty prose as to become morose than I shall say to them in a volumous cristaline oratory (in small words so they would understand), "I you got it flaunt it." And if my postings of the last day were in any way not in the spirit of the site I appologize to all of the readers, they were origionally intended for my website. I will let you know it's address when I feel like it.
To a certian wanna be literary editor.
You offend me sir, correct me I am wrong but would you prefer I write in a different style. How about Ghetto speak, hommie g face, me dogs been axing me ta... that enough of that. How about shakespearian, aNaRcHiSt times, time-honour'd friend, Hast thou, according to thy oath and band, Brought hither Chris Franson thy bold son, Here to make good the boisterous late appeal, Which then our leisure would not let us hear, Against the Duke of Magicoland. Beat that mister change writing styles, I like my writing style, change your perceptions to match my writings instead.

Magico, abuse your powers and they will go away, I created this page and I can kick you out of it

Well, this is pretty much a rant directed at an audience of Jeff, Jesse and I, but I'll try to make it as user-friendly as possible. In English class, all the books we've read have been terrible, but especially the "book" The House on Mango Street. This book was so utterly awful that I could barely put up with it. Reading it made me realize the positive sides of dying due to sudden and massive trauma to the face. But why? Why did we read this book? As I understand it, we were supposed to read it due to its "poetic" style. However, as far as I could tell, it was nothing more than poorly arranged phrases stacked into a page to create some semblance of weak imagery. But was there some deeper meaning to subjecting us to the torture of reading such a pretentious work? I'll leave that for Jeff to decide (thus, yes there was).

To certain new members of the aNaRcHiSt TiMeS: I believe that your methods of writing need an overhaul, as do one or more of my superiors (who will under no circumstances tolerate feebery), who can change your status as a writer. Just interject more actual facts, as opposed to spineless, half-developed opinions. Back up what you say. Enough said? Good, I thought so.

Magico you come onto the Atimes as someone with many opinions and willing to express them, but the problem is that you don't like giving and substantial proof or to that matter barely any subsequent proof. If you want to rant and rave on this paper I will support it and I will listen to the bull shit you are saying, but providing no facts and just shooting off you mouth demeans the entire paper and it turns it into a paper that seems like a bunch a prepubescent children are shouting out their completely spur of the moment ideas. You said that gun control is completely against the constitution, but two things to say to this. One is that the constitution is a living article and that (eventhough I don't agree with this) can change and be manipulated to fit current situations. And two you said guns were to protect people from wild beasts, but I hope by wild beast you meant government -- as guns were neccessary to allow American citizens to form into militias to fight off the British government or rebel against any infair laws. In other words -- I don't disagree with your opinion about the constitution, but you need some facts that aren't pulled out from you ass and that have some substantial detail.

My second problem with your articles aren't as much with what you say but moreso you as a person. You first off call someone retarded and then steal her ball. Sorry but I don't support anyone stealing a ball from someone who is handicapped and furthermore to go and laugh at it is completely disturbing. And the other reason I dislike you is because you aren't very intelligent. In fact you are a feeb. You think that throwing random words over two syllables into your editorial makes you sound more intelligent, but since you don't fully understand the words you use it just sounds like you are an idiot. Also by using larger words and ones that aren't commonly used you are expressing a fair amount of arrogance because you are mocking people who don't have quite as large of a vocabulary as you. And lastly as I expressed before you have no concept of history or the concept of what a piece of evidence is.

My advice to you Magico is to get some knowledge to back your opinions and to contemplate your thought before you write them down on this web site and humiliate its intention of educating the masses. You are a feeb, and you write on this web site . . . and that just doesn't settle in my stomach.

I resent your mother *BEEP* article, go to *BEEP* mother *BEEP*-er. SUCK *BEEP* loser, I hate You and your mother *BEEP*-ing friends. *BEEP*-hole. It's called the *BEEP*-ing First *BEEP*-ing Amendment, *BEEP*-hound, god-*BEEP* it. GO TO *BEEP* PEICE OF *BEEP*, *BEEP* and another thing *BEEP*BEEP*BEEP*. That shows you.
-"*BEEP* this" as said by Magico