Tag Archives: government

For Sale: Antique Manure Spreader

My dad never fails to entertain. This showed up in my inbox this morning.

It’s an ad for a manure spreader, the description is particularly interesting…

manure spreader

Fifty-year old manure spreader. Not sure of brand. Said to have been produced in Kenya. Used for a few years in Indonesia before being smuggled into the US via Hawaii. Of questionable pedigree.

Does not appear to have ever been worked very hard. Apparently it was pampered by various owners over the years. It doesn’t work very often, but when it does it can really spread the manure and sling it amazing distances.

I am hoping to retire this manure spreader next November. But I really don’t want it hanging around getting in the way. I would prefer a foreign buyer that is willing to relocate this manure spreader out of the country. I would be willing to trade this manure spreader for a nicely framed copy of the United States Constitution.

Location: Washington, D.C.
it’s NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

It was originally found as an ad on Craig’s List in 2012, as seen below:

New Discovery: First Half of the 2nd Amendment?

Someone shared this article with me called “NEW DISCOVERY: First Half of the 2nd Amendment” which asserts that the first half of the 2nd Amendment (which they’d never seen before) proves that the 2nd Amendment applies to the militia.

The Bill of Rights have been around for almost 220 years and this is a “new” discovery? I love satire sites, I really do… The problem with satire sites is that many don’t realize it’s satire…

At any rate, I decided to take the opportunity to explain, a bit, how the Amendment is written and why.

A simple lesson in commas explains it very well.

Commas are used for many things. The two that come into play here are when listing things and framing clauses.

Let’s break it down.

The 2nd Amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The list of things it’s separating are the the militia and the right of the people. The clause is the explanation of why the militia is necessary.

If you remove the clause you get:

A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

However, if you remove the clause, it looks weird. You can make it a better sentence – prettier – by putting in the word ‘and’.

A well regulated Militia, [and] the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

But, the writers of the Bill of Rights wanted to clarify that a militia is needed to keep our states secure. It could be written to mean the same thing using parenthesis, but it just wouldn’t be as pretty and neat…

A well regulated Militia (being necessary to the security of a free State) and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

People say that the right of the people bearing arms was to arm the militia, but since we have the military – the people no longer need to be armed. The military is, so we no longer need to be, but it’s two different things in the Amendment – not related. The military has no bearing on the right to bear arms.

If you know anything about history and when these were written, an explanation to why we were given this right isn’t really necessary – but an explanation as to why owning a firearm makes sense shouldn’t be necessary either and well…

I can’t prove you wrong, so I’ll just insult you instead…

As most of … well, probably all of you, know – I love a good debate or discussion.

I don’t care one bit for people who resort to name calling and insulting, but this day an age most ‘adults’ are unable to have a discussion without insulting the person they disagree with. Usually, at that point, I lose all interest and move on.

Today I discovered that there’s a loathsome debate tactic that I despise even more… Assumptions and condescension…

People, who know nothing about you – nothing – form an opinion of you based on nothing more than words on a screen. If you make a typo, you’re stupid and uneducated. If you disagree with their opinion, you’re doing so because of biased information you got from some source they despise. If you have a certain set of beliefs or way of doing things, you were raised by bigoted parents.

Heaven for bid someone learns I’m from the south. As soon as they do, I’m automatically a neo-nazi white supremacist who wants to bring back slavery…

And why do they say and think those things? … Because I disagree with their position on whatever hot topic is in the news.

Recently I had an encounter with a vile human being. It was on my favorite topic though – guns.

A woman, who we’ll refer to as “Kay”, left a comment on Joe the Plumber’s page about how America has more gun deaths than any other country and she didn’t get how people could say that more guns mean less crime.

I, probably, could have easily just moved along from that comment, but she said she’d like to know how that can be. So, I answered her. I said:

If you’d truly like to know how, I can explain it to you – but I don’t think you do. …The answer is in your own words when you said “there have been 12,042 gun deaths in America” – key word ‘GUN’…

In nations where guns were outlawed, murder, homicide, suicide, etc all went up – they just used something other than a gun… “

Someone read my reply and indicated they were genuinely interested in my sources for that information – so I shared some links. Well, this, apparently, did not sit too well with Kay…

The links I’d shared had been truncated, so they didn’t work right at first. Kay attacked that – which was ludicrous – but whatever makes you feel better… – I guess.

It was her next comment that was astounding to me… She said:

I am a Veteran, I am a Correctional veteran, I am a Law Enforcement Veteran so little girl if you think you are ‘schooling’ anyone I have a big surprise for you sister. First off your ability to copy and paste links from a Reich wing web site is commendable but do you actually have a factual defensible position to take? NO? Didn’t think so. Second did you intent to use links that work from you commendable ability to aptly demonstrate you are willing to be lead around by a nose ring regurgitating things you likely haven’t bothered to read but again, found on your NRA happy gunz gunz gunz web site. Do you even know what the SCOTUS cases are I quoted? I sincerely doubt it so when you put on your training bra to bud a pair I suggest you do some research first (no baby girl it really isn’t a bad word). So lets see your actual opinion, factually supported from unbiased sources. Go ahead little Muppet.. I dare you. (HINT Nation master uses sources globally it isn’t limited to the U. S. I’d avoid it since it isn’t verified or did you think the second amendment applies globally? I am betting you failed Geography.)

Apparently, being a Law Enforcement Veteran turns people into things that only resemble people. It must have, clearly, made her a walking encyclopedia for gun stats and information – including Geography, but it also turned her into a very vile, twisted and bitter human being. Well, that probably wasn’t what did it, but the point is the same: This lady is angry.

It’s sad really.

Honestly, my first thought – after reading it – was “Did I just read what I think I read? … Yeah, I did…” and then I had this reaction:

This morning, when my husband got up to get ready for work, I read to him what she said. His response was a bit of a sigh and a “H’oh boy.”

This is not a topic in which I ‘play’. He knows it. Everyone knows it. Well, she didn’t… didn’t…

And the “do you actually have a factual defensible position to take? NO? Didn’t think so.” remark…

Really? I mean, really…?

She knows nothing about me, what I know, don’t know, read, watch, study or do for fun. And she has clearly never seen me or she’d know how completely wrong and misguided the put on your training bra to bud a pair” remark was. Yeah, I get it. Her point was to insult, doesn’t matter if it’s true – but sheesh…. At least insult something that can’t be refuted. I had a breast reduction surgery and I’m still well … top heavy… for goodness sake.

On this particular topic, she challenged the wrong Muppet…

Here’s the thing – why’d she reply in the hateful, condescending manner in which she did? See, I thought about that for a little while and came to a conclusion…

She was angry that she’d been proven wrong and was attempting to intimidate me into not responding.

It didn’t work.

Name calling and insulting is an intellectually dishonest effort to distract from the debate because the one who uses insults is incapable of refuting the facts or logic of their opponent. She, in addition to name calling and insulting, used condescension because resized_99263-ron-white_88-16226_t300she knew she didn’t have a leg to stand on.

I replied, gave her more facts, studies, research documents, etc – however – I doubt it will change anything. In fact, I doubt she’ll even reply. Facts have a way of silencing people…

Especially facts that are backed up with sources and info.

I seriously doubt she’ll respond, but I sort of hope she does because I already know my reply:

“I see your mind is made up and closed so I wouldn’t want to confuse you with any more facts…”