look up any word, like blumpkin:

8 definitions by yt45

An arrogant individual who will attempt to dictate how you live your life because, "It's in your best interest," as if you don't know what's good for you but they do.

Wants to take away the money you worked your ass off to earn and give it to some welfare leech that doesn't even try to get a job. Because "That's fair."

Will try to restrict your right to free speech if you disagree with them. Because "That's hate speech!"

Wants to take away your right and means to defend yourself against violence and force you to be a victim. Because "That will make you safer."

Wants to eliminate your freedom of religion. Because "Churches are intolerant."

Wants to deny you the right to raise your children the way you choose, and instead forcibly indoctrinate them to their way of thinking. They call it "Education."

Often have never existed outside of a media studio or university classroom, but will quickly denounce anybody with actual real-world experience.

Go on and on about "Free/Independent Thinking" and being "Open-Minded," yet do everything they can to censor anybody who doesn't toe their party line.

Are quick to call anybody who disagrees with them a "Racist," "Homophobe," "Bible-Thumper," or "Redneck" but call this practice "Tolerance and Civility."
Progressive: "We progressives are all about fairness! Free speech! Freedom of religion! Any church that won't perform a gay wedding should be shut down!"

Rational person: "Look, I got nothing against gays. I have gay friends. But my religious belief says homosexuality is wrong. I don't hold it against my gay friends. I just don't think that a church should be compelled to do something that we believe is a sin. They can still get married at the courthouse, or city hall, or whatever. I'll attend their wedding. But it's wrong to force your belief down somebody's throat."

Progressive: "You're an ignorant racist homophobe redneck teabagging Bible-thumper! You're intolerant of anybody who disagrees with you!"

Rational person: "Really?"
by yt45 February 27, 2013
446 196
Ernesto "Che" Guevara: supposedly a kind, generous, humble Cuban doctor who became a brave champion of the poor.

In reality, a disaffected rich-kid communist from Argentina who dropped out of med school, fancied himself a genius guerilla but got his ass kicked any time he led men in battle, liked to torture people, was a rapist, murdered THOUSANDS based on the fact that he didn't like them, and a COWARD.

Che turned everything he touched to shit. In Cuba, he was Castro's ass-buddy and favorite hit man. Castro figured out that Che wasn't worth crap in combat, so he had him lead death squads in the war instead. His job in Castro's government was executing "political prisoners," mostly teenage boys. Che liked to pull the trigger himself, as he got off on the power trip.

He got kicked out of Cuba after pissing off Castro and drifted from one communist civil war to the next. Always had the same MO: give speeches, execute innocent civilians, torture more civilians, give more speeches, run away before the fight starts.

When he went to Bolivia, the people he claimed to fight for wanted nothing to do with this asshole. His location was immediately reported to the Bolivian Army and he died begging for his life. A fitting end, considering how many people he personally executed without trial, evidence, or mercy.

The left has managed to reinvent his image as some kind of "Hero of the People," despite the fact that the people of every country he was involved in still hate his guts.
Liberal: "Che Guevara was a man of the people!"

Anybody who knows anything whatsoever about Guevara: "Sure he was. Just like Heinrich Himmler or Josef Mengele. Try doing some fucking research before making yourself look like an idiot next time, numbnuts."
by yt45 February 27, 2013
26 13
In the old West, nobody ever said "gunslinger."

Hollywood came up with that term in the 1930s. The most common word actually used back then was "gunhand." "Shootist," "pistolier," and occasionally "pistolero" were also used, but less common.

The word "gunslinger" is bullshit, just like so many other things that come from Hollywood.
Friend: "Dude, what's this old black and white cowboy picture?"

Me: "That's my Great-Grandfather when he and his older brothers had to ride with a posse going after a serial rapist in southwest Arizona in 1916."

Friend: "Your gramps was a gunslinger? Cool! He must have shot all kinds of fools!"

Me: "Nobody said gunslinger back then, fuckstick, they were called gunhands. And no, Great-Grandpa wasn't a gunhand just because he knew how to shoot. He wasn't a bounty hunter or anything like that. They went to apprehend the fucker, not just kill him outright. They caught him and brought him back. He stood trial, was convicted, and they hanged his ass."
by yt45 February 26, 2013
7 0
The worst team with the best players in the NFL. But at least they still (usually) kick the shit out of the Raiders.
So many of the San Diego Chargers players have great individual stats, you'd think they'd be a good team...
by yt45 January 14, 2013
12 6
Also known as akimbo or dual-fisting. The act of firing two guns at once, one in each hand.

A ridiculous, idiotic, and downright fucktarded practice popularized in John Woo movies and unrealistic video games like Call of Duty.

It is probably descended from the few gunhands in the old West who used two pistols. But instead of firing both at once, they would either do a Border Switch (draw two guns, empty the first one before firing the second), or a New York Reload (draw your backup piece when your weapon runs dry rather than reloading). This is because it is impossible for a human being to look through two sets of sights at once.

Therefore if you fire two guns at once, at least one of them won't be aimed at all, causing you to waste all of the ammo in that gun hitting nothing that you actually wanted to. Or you could just do it the Hollywood way and not even try to use your sights, meaning you'll just spray & pray with both weapons, waste all of your ammo, and hit everything except your target. Also, using two SMGs or automatic rifles instead of pistols doesn't make this stupidity more effective, it just makes you waste more ammo, look more retarded, and still not hit jack shit.
Dual-wield! You'll shoot lots of holes in everything EXCEPT your target, but at least you'll look cool doing it.
by yt45 February 26, 2013
8 3
The last one they could really claim was when they put a 14-year old girl in charge of their army. Of course, the girl in question (St. Joan of Arc--Jeanne D'Arc) was divinely inspired and the English were mostly drunk off their asses, so this may not have been a fair fight. The French were so grateful for their victory, they had her gang-raped, tortured, and burned at the stake.

They do like to claim victories won by others since then, though (Yorktown, both world wars, etc.). Remember, France is the only country in the world that has lost wars against Mexico AND Algeria!
How many French Victories have you heard of that didn't involve lots of guys from other countries doing most of the fighting?
by yt45 January 14, 2013
17 14
An Italian firearms manufacturer that loves to advertise the fact that they've been in business since Renaissance times. The quality of their products is somewhat hit-or-miss. They have made some excellent rifles, like the M1 Garand-derivative BM59. They make pretty good, though overpriced shotguns. Their pistols just suck.

Their trademark piece, the 9mm Model 92, is a study in bad design. It was adopted by the US Military as the M9 in 1985 to replace the superior M1911 .45 as the standard-issue sidearm, despite the fact that it failed the tests at Aberdeen Proving Grounds and caused serious injury to one of the testers. The design is highly susceptible to dirt, and the open-top slide means it will always get packed with dirt no matter how much you baby it. Ask anybody who carried one in Iraq, the slightest bit of dirt will make the M9 jam to hell and gone. The magazines don't feed well and wear out quickly. The trigger pull is too heavy, which throws off your aim. On top of that, they are made of crappy steel. Beretta 92s will get cracks in the slide after 2,000-4,000 rounds and need to be completely rebuilt. By comparison, Glocks can last 40,000-50,000 rounds, SIGs last 80,000-100,000 rounds, and 1911s are known to go for a million rounds or more with their original parts.
"My M4 ran dry just as that hajji came around the corner with an AK. Didn't have time for a mag change, so I switched to my M9. Fucker jammed on me, and I just cleaned it that morning. Thank God that hajji couldn't shoot for shit, 'cause I had to bum rush him and stick his ass with my knife! Fuckin' beretta sucks, man!"
by yt45 January 14, 2013
13 13