Profile overview for Banana_Mafia.
Submission statistics

This user has mostly submitted to the following subverses (showing top 5):

1 submissions to 195

1 submissions to bigdickproblems

1 submissions to help

1 submissions to Listentothis

1 submissions to music

This user has so far shared a total of 3 links, started a total of 2 discussions and submitted a total of 124 comments.

Voting habits

Submissions: This user has upvoted 44 and downvoted 2 submissions.

Comments: This user has upvoted 46 and downvoted 4 comments.

Submission ratings

5 highest rated submissions:

Gogol Bordello - Immigraniada (Gypsy Punk), submitted: 7/7/2015 3:48:31 PM, 9 points (+9|-0)

Black Magic Woman- Santana, submitted: 7/7/2015 6:12:32 PM, 9 points (+9|-0)

I found some underwear that works for me, submitted: 7/7/2015 4:24:17 PM, 6 points (+6|-0)

I currently am being added as a mod , submitted: 7/7/2015 4:40:03 PM, 1 points (+1|-0)

VITAS- In the District of Magnolies. Children's Day., submitted: 8/16/2015 10:13:03 PM, 1 points (+1|-0)

5 lowest rated submissions:

I currently am being added as a mod , submitted: 7/7/2015 4:40:03 PM, 1 points (+1|-0)

VITAS- In the District of Magnolies. Children's Day., submitted: 8/16/2015 10:13:03 PM, 1 points (+1|-0)

I found some underwear that works for me, submitted: 7/7/2015 4:24:17 PM, 6 points (+6|-0)

Gogol Bordello - Immigraniada (Gypsy Punk), submitted: 7/7/2015 3:48:31 PM, 9 points (+9|-0)

Black Magic Woman- Santana, submitted: 7/7/2015 6:12:32 PM, 9 points (+9|-0)

Comment ratings

3 highest rated comments:

Have you taken a look at the Banned User list yet? Fucking love these mods submitted by Calza to fatpeoplehate

Banana_Mafia 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago

the transparency here is on point

Art Inception submitted by 9-11 to pics

Banana_Mafia 1 points 17 points (+18|-1) ago

yo dawg i heard you like paintings...

Migrants crisis: Slovakia 'will only accept Christians' submitted by dildonkers to news

Banana_Mafia 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago

I don't understand... this is a problem? sounds pretty nice to me

3 lowest rated comments:

Do you pronounce "there" and "their" differently? submitted by profanion to AskVoat

Banana_Mafia 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago

Whoever does that is an idiot. There, their, and they're are homophones.

Homophone- a word that is pronounced the same as another word but differs in meaning, and may differ in spelling. The words may be spelled the same, such as rose (flower) and rose (past tense of "rise"), or differently, such as carat, caret, and carrot, or to, two, and too.

Obama Talks Earnestly of Simple Laws that Could Have Prevented Oregon Shooting, Names None submitted by FreeSpeachRocks to politics

Banana_Mafia 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago

I honestly thought the article was shit, I watched the entire speech as well.

Obama is undoubtedly overreaching beyond the facts when he speaks over and over about how apparently easy and simple gun-safety laws would have prevented this, or future tragedies like this.

Well if it was really that hard to get a gun why is this shooting in Oregon the 45th school shooting of 2015?

He doesn't, even in this very long speech, get down to a single specific or even a hint of a specific about exactly what new laws he wants that would have prevented this from happening.

Not true, in his speech he said, " We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours -- Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it."

He is saying we are similar to Australia and the UK and that the laws they have actually work; he is stating that the gun laws in Australia and the UK have gun laws that almost completely eliminate mass shootings.

UK gun law overview- Any person possessing a firearm in the U.K. must posses a Shotgun Certificate or a Firearm Certificate. Machine guns, pepper spray, semi-automatic, and pump-action rifles, and any firearm that has a barrel less than 30 centimeters in length are prohibited.

Australia's gun laws- National Firearm Agreement, this law groups guns in 6 categories with varying degrees of control. Basically no handguns, semi auto shotguns or semi auto rifles. no full auto guns. There's more to it than that but I'm just giving an overview here.

He never mentioned anything about the Second Amendment or the fact that one of the problems with restricting access to guns in a manner other countries do is that we have that Amendment. Guns are a legally special item in the United States, for good reasons. Discussing them as if they were any other random safety issue misses the key point in why guns are such a politically contentious issue.

He does go over the constitution stating that,

"When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer. When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities. We have seatbelt laws because we know it saves lives.So the notion that gun violence is somehow different, that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and protect their families and do everything they do under such regulations doesn’t make sense."

By making such a vague speech, refusing to acknowledge the Second Amendment exists, and making it clear that in some senses he thinks the problem is the sheer fact that there are so many guns, he certainly gives reason for Second Amendment advocates to mistrust his intentions.

Another quote from the President, "There is a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in America. So how can you, with a straight face, make the argument that more guns will make us safer? We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don't work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals will still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence."

Obama acts as if the question of how to stop things like this from happening is easy. It's not, which is why this speech contained so few specifics.

Expressing grief and emotion can be appropriate for a politician. But the ability of a given particular new law to prevent tragedies is a very fact-specific thing, which is why the time to begin politicizing any particular tragedy like this is after one knows what circumstances about it could be affected by law.

the President continued, saying that, "And, of course, what’s also routine is that somebody, somewhere will comment and say, Obama politicized this issue. Well, this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic. I would ask news organizations -- because I won't put these facts forward -- have news organizations tally up the number of Americans who’ve been killed through terrorist attacks over the last decade and the number of Americans who’ve been killed by gun violence, and post those side-by-side on your news reports. This won't be information coming from me; it will be coming from you. We spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so. And yet, we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths. How can that be?"

Overall between reading the article written by Brian Doherty and watching the President's speech I don't believe the article represents accurately represents the speech in the least.

The author does a poor job of identifying the obvious or simply chooses to ignore blatant hints such as when the President said, "And I would particularly ask America’s gun owners -- who are using those guns properly, safely, to hunt, for sport, for protecting their families -- to think about whether your views are properly being represented by the organization that suggests it's speaking for you."

The organization that the president is referring to is the National Rifle Association, an organization promoting gun rights and lobbies congress to prevent any passage of bills that would put legal restrictions on guns. Overall I'd say the speech was coherent and to the point with several good suggestions concerning the gun laws of our allies and how their gun laws prevent almost all mass shootings. The author of this article leans to the far right and the bias in his writing is evident.

Obama Talks Earnestly of Simple Laws that Could Have Prevented Oregon Shooting, Names None submitted by FreeSpeachRocks to politics

Banana_Mafia 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago

I honestly thought the article was shit, I watched the entire speech as well.

Obama is undoubtedly overreaching beyond the facts when he speaks over and over about how apparently easy and simple gun-safety laws would have prevented this, or future tragedies like this.

Well if it was really that hard to get a gun why is this shooting in Oregon the 45th school shooting of 2015?

He doesn't, even in this very long speech, get down to a single specific or even a hint of a specific about exactly what new laws he wants that would have prevented this from happening.

Not true, in his speech he said, " We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours -- Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it."

He is saying we are similar to Australia and the UK and that the laws they have actually work; he is stating that the gun laws in Australia and the UK have gun laws that almost completely eliminate mass shootings.

UK gun law overview- Any person possessing a firearm in the U.K. must posses a Shotgun Certificate or a Firearm Certificate. Machine guns, pepper spray, semi-automatic, and pump-action rifles, and any firearm that has a barrel less than 30 centimeters in length are prohibited.

Australia's gun laws- National Firearm Agreement, this law groups guns in 6 categories with varying degrees of control. Basically no handguns, semi auto shotguns or semi auto rifles. no full auto guns. There's more to it than that but I'm just giving an overview here.

He never mentioned anything about the Second Amendment or the fact that one of the problems with restricting access to guns in a manner other countries do is that we have that Amendment. Guns are a legally special item in the United States, for good reasons. Discussing them as if they were any other random safety issue misses the key point in why guns are such a politically contentious issue.

He does go over the constitution stating that,

"When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer. When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities. We have seatbelt laws because we know it saves lives.So the notion that gun violence is somehow different, that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and protect their families and do everything they do under such regulations doesn’t make sense."

By making such a vague speech, refusing to acknowledge the Second Amendment exists, and making it clear that in some senses he thinks the problem is the sheer fact that there are so many guns, he certainly gives reason for Second Amendment advocates to mistrust his intentions.

Another quote from the President, "There is a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in America. So how can you, with a straight face, make the argument that more guns will make us safer? We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don't work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals will still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence."

Obama acts as if the question of how to stop things like this from happening is easy. It's not, which is why this speech contained so few specifics.

Expressing grief and emotion can be appropriate for a politician. But the ability of a given particular new law to prevent tragedies is a very fact-specific thing, which is why the time to begin politicizing any particular tragedy like this is after one knows what circumstances about it could be affected by law.

the President continued, saying that, "And, of course, what’s also routine is that somebody, somewhere will comment and say, Obama politicized this issue. Well, this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic. I would ask news organizations -- because I won't put these facts forward -- have news organizations tally up the number of Americans who’ve been killed through terrorist attacks over the last decade and the number of Americans who’ve been killed by gun violence, and post those side-by-side on your news reports. This won't be information coming from me; it will be coming from you. We spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so. And yet, we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths. How can that be?"

Overall between reading the article written by Brian Doherty and watching the President's speech I don't believe the article represents accurately represents the speech in the least.

The author does a poor job of identifying the obvious or simply chooses to ignore blatant hints such as when the President said, "And I would particularly ask America’s gun owners -- who are using those guns properly, safely, to hunt, for sport, for protecting their families -- to think about whether your views are properly being represented by the organization that suggests it's speaking for you."

The organization that the president is referring to is the National Rifle Association, an organization promoting gun rights and lobbies congress to prevent any passage of bills that would put legal restrictions on guns. Overall I'd say the speech was coherent and to the point with several good suggestions concerning the gun laws of our allies and how their gun laws prevent almost all mass shootings. The author of this article leans to the far right and the bias in his writing is evident.