If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Caller)   Help The Daily Caller find their hacker and win a gun. Offer good until November 6, 2012   (dailycaller.com) divider line 96
    More: Weird  
•       •       •

1729 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Aug 2012 at 2:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



96 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-01 08:05:10 AM
"First, if you're the first person to find our hacker and turn his name over to us, we'll give you a gun."

They don't seem to have listed what comes second. Fame and fortune?

"Each gun is engraved with the Bill of Rights."

Just how big is this gun? Or did they mean the 2nd Amendment?

"For all of you readers out there who aren't Internet sleuths we have a second way to win: Write an essay telling us what you think we should do with the hacker when we find him."

I bet those submissions are going to be pearls of wit and reason.
 
2012-08-01 08:18:45 AM
Daily Caller and their online community of right-wing Internet Tough Guys, versus hackers.

Oh, yeah. This should be good.
 
2012-08-01 08:34:15 AM

ginandbacon: "For all of you readers out there who aren't Internet sleuths we have a second way to win: Write an essay telling us what you think we should do with the hacker when we find him."

I bet those submissions are going to be pearls of wit and reason.


'Write an essay'? That's just downright unAmerican. TFA is a liberal imposter.
 
2012-08-01 10:38:23 AM
This sounds like something a 14 year old would come up with.
 
2012-08-01 11:13:57 AM
All of you know that nothing could be further from the truth: The Daily Caller is a safe site, and always will be.

That statement really requires qualification.
 
2012-08-01 12:35:16 PM
Slate picked it up:

"The guess here is that the site will have more luck with its other hacker-related gun giveaway-an essay contest that asks readers to describe what the Daily Caller should do with the hacker once it finds him (the site apparently assumes the culprit is male). Revenge fantasies-now that's something at which I can well imagine the site's readers will excel."
 
2012-08-01 01:40:20 PM
Ooh this could be fun.
 
2012-08-01 02:04:46 PM
The Daily Caller is a safe site, and always will be

...So have a gun on us. :-)
 
2012-08-01 02:05:21 PM

ginandbacon: "For all of you readers out there who aren't Internet sleuths we have a second way to win: Write an essay telling us what you think we should do with the hacker when we find him."

I bet those submissions are going to be pearls of wit and reason.


I should submit whole chapters of Fifty Shades of Grey.

ginandbacon: Slate picked it up:

"The guess here is that the site will have more luck with its other hacker-related gun giveaway-an essay contest that asks readers to describe what the Daily Caller should do with the hacker once it finds him (the site apparently assumes the culprit is male). Revenge fantasies-now that's something at which I can well imagine the site's readers will excel."


To be fair...
 
2012-08-01 02:09:58 PM
our site was hacked recently. There were some extremely inappropriate ads placed on our homepage

I'm wondering, purely for shiats and giggles, what those ads were for.
 
2012-08-01 02:11:17 PM

Karac: our site was hacked recently. There were some extremely inappropriate ads placed on our homepage

I'm wondering, purely for shiats and giggles, what those ads were for.


Donations to the United Way.
 
2012-08-01 02:13:07 PM
FMK. A gun so shiatty you have to give them away.

/or so I've heard
 
2012-08-01 02:15:31 PM
That's classy.

You don't even need to offer a gun, some goons will turn in their own mothers if it meant getting a $5/month subscription.

/walks away whistling cheerfully
 
2012-08-01 02:15:55 PM
Speaking as CO of 3rd Platoon; 215th Regiment of the 17th Internet Tough Guys Division, we already have 3 million Uzis and, like, a ton of bazookas, all of which we are certified to handle on COD, so we don't need the gun.

However, we're going to spend the next 26 minutes before we get to the gym thinking of ways to crush that liberal hacker when we finally get our hands on him and he sees how hot our girlfriends are in real life.
 
2012-08-01 02:20:38 PM
I told them I'd create a GUI interface using Visual Basic to track the hacker's IP address.
 
2012-08-01 02:20:43 PM

Karac: our site was hacked recently. There were some extremely inappropriate ads placed on our homepage

I'm wondering, purely for shiats and giggles, what those ads were for.


s7d2.scene7.com
 
2012-08-01 02:22:33 PM
The Daily Caller is a safe site, and always will be.

Even when the site is hacked?
 
2012-08-01 02:22:47 PM

Karac: our site was hacked recently. There were some extremely inappropriate ads placed on our homepage

I'm wondering, purely for shiats and giggles, what those ads were for.


If you follow the slate link posted above, it ostensibly links to the ads, but I believe the link would be flagged at work, so I can't actually post it.
 
2012-08-01 02:25:06 PM

rufus-t-firefly: The Daily Caller is a safe site, and always will be.

Even when the site is hacked?


ALWAYS!
 
2012-08-01 02:25:42 PM

rufus-t-firefly: I told them I'd create a GUI interface using Visual Basic to track the hacker's IP address.


hehe, niiice!
 
2012-08-01 02:26:23 PM
If I turn myself in, do I still get the gun?
 
2012-08-01 02:26:42 PM

ginandbacon: ust how big is this gun? Or did they mean the 2nd Amendment?


i49.tinypic.com

The Bill Of Rights: Conservative Condensed and Out Of Context Edition.

/they skipped the part about militias, for one obvious thing
 
2012-08-01 02:26:43 PM

magusdevil: rufus-t-firefly: The Daily Caller is a safe site, and always will be.

Even when the site is hacked?

ALWAYS!


PUNCH.BAT WAS CALLED
 
2012-08-01 02:26:56 PM
"Some Script kiddie defaced our webpage... so instead of hiring someone competent to manage our site security...we are going to hold a pointless contest where the prize is worth a whopping $350!!!1!"
 
2012-08-01 02:27:03 PM

jcb274: Karac: our site was hacked recently. There were some extremely inappropriate ads placed on our homepage

I'm wondering, purely for shiats and giggles, what those ads were for.

If you follow the slate link posted above, it ostensibly links to the ads, but I believe the link would be flagged at work, so I can't actually post it.


And three links later .... it appears to be some bald dude 69's with a generic blonde porn-bimbo.

I think the suggestions listed in this thread would have been far more humorous.
 
2012-08-01 02:27:16 PM

Marcus Aurelius: This sounds like something a 14 year old would come up with.


An especially immature 14 year old.
 
2012-08-01 02:28:17 PM
9mm? As a coworker said to me just this morning while discussing that caliber..."That shiat's for tweens."
 
2012-08-01 02:29:31 PM

jcb274: Karac: our site was hacked recently. There were some extremely inappropriate ads placed on our homepage

I'm wondering, purely for shiats and giggles, what those ads were for.

If you follow the slate link posted above, it ostensibly links to the ads, but I believe the link would be flagged at work, so I can't actually post it.


i46.tinypic.com

That's what Slate has.
 
2012-08-01 02:30:00 PM
I would just tell the RIAA piracy hotline that they stole 4,000 MP3's from our web server. They'll take care of the rest.

Work smarter, not harder.
 
2012-08-01 02:30:39 PM

Marcus Aurelius: This sounds like something a 14 year old would come up with.


Yes.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-01 02:33:16 PM
I just wonder, if I win, instead of the Bill of Rights, can I just get an image of Ron Paul engraved on the side?
 
2012-08-01 02:33:34 PM

magusdevil: Karac: our site was hacked recently. There were some extremely inappropriate ads placed on our homepage

I'm wondering, purely for shiats and giggles, what those ads were for.

[s7d2.scene7.com image 318x318]


images.zap2it.com
 
2012-08-01 02:34:36 PM
So Ted Cruz won yesterday...
 
2012-08-01 02:35:55 PM

dallylamma: 9mm? As a coworker said to me just this morning while discussing that caliber..."That shiat's for tweens."


How about a Smith & Wesson Model 500?
 
2012-08-01 02:36:23 PM

justinguarini4ever: So Ted Cruz won yesterday...


Not just won; Cruz (backed by the Tea Party) crushed his opponent, who was backed by Gov. Perry and the old guard Texas Republicans. The Tea Party takeover of Texas is complete; it should be very amusing to see who they put up as governor next time around.
 
2012-08-01 02:43:46 PM
My handle indicates that I should say something witty yet ironically disturbing here.

/got nothing
 
2012-08-01 02:44:25 PM

She comes in colors everywhere: ginandbacon: ust how big is this gun? Or did they mean the 2nd Amendment?

[i49.tinypic.com image 630x262]

The Bill Of Rights: Conservative Condensed and Out Of Context Edition.

/they skipped the part about militias, for one obvious thing


Well, actually, the part about the militias is a dependent clause and is merely a reason for, not a limitation upon, the Right (the part quoted as an independent clause, which can stand alone as a grammatically correct and complete sentence in its own right, unlike the part about the militias).

In basic English grammar, both then and now, for complex, compound, and (as the Second Amendment is), compound-complex sentences, any dependent clauses are merely illustrative or descriptive, and the only active part of the entire sentence is the independent clause (of which there can be only one).

"A well regulated Militia, necessary to the security of a free State," cannot stand alone as a grammatically complete and correct sentence in its own right. Therefore, it's a dependent clause (at best ― it has no clear verb, so it may not even qualify as a clause of any kind, but just a chain of phrases!).

"The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." can stand alone as a grammatically complete and correct sentence in its own right. Therefore, it's an independent clause, and the only legally active part of the Second Amendment.

Also, three consecutive pre-ratification drafts of the Second Amendment explicitly defined "Militia" as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

The boldfaced part was removed from the final version for one reason, and one reason only: because it was considered redundant, as everyone knew what the term "Militia" meant (in the idiom of the day ― they didn't know that it would change that much).
 
2012-08-01 02:49:57 PM

rufus-t-firefly: dallylamma: 9mm? As a coworker said to me just this morning while discussing that caliber..."That shiat's for tweens."

How about a Smith & Wesson Model 500?


My local range has one, I've shot it once...I think it was $8 bucks a round or something stupid like that. You get a good whump in the chest from the concussion of the round going off.
 
2012-08-01 02:50:28 PM

COMALite J: "A well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

The boldfaced part was removed from the final version for one reason, and one reason only: because it was considered redundant, as everyone knew what the term "Militia" meant (in the idiom of the day ― they didn't know that it would change that much).


At the time, it was a common act (particularly among the English navy) to sever an arm as a punishment. The recipient had to tend to it himself, to allow himself to live. The few who survived generally became the harshest disciplinarians in the English military, and their brutal actions before and during the Revolutionary war were shocking. Recognizing the new Nation's intent to have militias be the backbone of the military rather than a standing army, the Founding Fathers drafted the 2nd Amendment as an explicit attempt to prevent such brutal discipline (or similar types of discipline like decimation) from demolishing the morale of a militia-based military. They recognized it would be more harmful than not, and the English themselves abandoned it not two decades later.
 
2012-08-01 02:50:37 PM

COMALite J: Well, actually, the part about the militias is a dependent clause and is merely a reason for, not a limitation upon, the Right (the part quoted as an independent clause, which can stand alone as a grammatically correct and complete sentence in its own right, unlike the part about the militias).


Dependent clause provides context and teaches us the intentions of the framers.

A strict constructionist HAS to follow it or s/he is just kidding. (Scalia, I'm looking at you.)
 
2012-08-01 03:05:35 PM

sprawl15: COMALite J: "A well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

The boldfaced part was removed from the final version for one reason, and one reason only: because it was considered redundant, as everyone knew what the term "Militia" meant (in the idiom of the day ― they didn't know that it would change that much).

At the time, it was a common act (particularly among the English navy) to sever an arm as a punishment. The recipient had to tend to it himself, to allow himself to live. The few who survived generally became the harshest disciplinarians in the English military, and their brutal actions before and during the Revolutionary war were shocking. Recognizing the new Nation's intent to have militias be the backbone of the military rather than a standing army, the Founding Fathers drafted the 2nd Amendment as an explicit attempt to prevent such brutal discipline (or similar types of discipline like decimation) from demolishing the morale of a militia-based military. They recognized it would be more harmful than not, and the English themselves abandoned it not two decades later.


Can you show me in the Congressional debates of the time (freely available on the Internet) where this was discussed as the reason?

She comes in colors everywhere: COMALite J: Well, actually, the part about the militias is a dependent clause and is merely a reason for, not a limitation upon, the Right (the part quoted as an independent clause, which can stand alone as a grammatically correct and complete sentence in its own right, unlike the part about the militias).

Dependent clause provides context and teaches us the intentions of the framers.

A strict constructionist HAS to follow it or s/he is just kidding. (Scalia, I'm looking at you.)


The actual debates of the actual Framers regarding this and other Amendments in the Bill of Rights provides a lot more context and teaches us a lot more of their intentions, as does the earlier drafts such as I quoted from above.

Composed of the body of the people. Not a subset. Not a specialized group. All of them.

As I said yesterday in another thread: one can rationally debate whether the Second Amendment is outdated, has served its purpose, does more harm than good in this day and age, etc. (just get two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then ¾ of the States to agree with you, and you're all set!), but one can not rationally debate the plain fact of what it very clearly and plainly says in English grammar both then and now, and in the idiom of the day, and what the Framers meant by it (their words survive, are freely available on the internet, and are quite clear on the matter).
 
2012-08-01 03:07:59 PM

rufus-t-firefly: The Daily Caller is a safe site, and always will be.

Even when the site is hacked?


The site was declared safe retroactively.
 
2012-08-01 03:18:22 PM

COMALite J: sprawl15: COMALite J: "A well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, being necessary to the security of a free State..."The boldfaced part was removed from the final version for one reason, and one reason only: because it was considered redundant, as everyone knew what the term "Militia" meant (in the idiom of the day ― they didn't know that it would change that much).At the time, it was a common act (particularly among the English navy) to sever an arm as a punishment. The recipient had to tend to it himself, to allow himself to live. The few who survived generally became the harshest disciplinarians in the English military, and their brutal actions before and during the Revolutionary war were shocking. Recognizing the new Nation's intent to have militias be the backbone of the military rather than a standing army, the Founding Fathers drafted the 2nd Amendment as an explicit attempt to prevent such brutal discipline (or similar types of discipline like decimation) from demolishing the morale of a militia-based military. They recognized it would be more harmful than not, and the English themselves abandoned it not two decades later.

Can you show me in the Congressional debates of the time (freely available on the Internet) where this was discussed as the reason?


I believe that sprawl15 was joking.
 
2012-08-01 03:21:16 PM

COMALite J: She comes in colors everywhere: ginandbacon: ust how big is this gun? Or did they mean the 2nd Amendment?

[i49.tinypic.com image 630x262]

The Bill Of Rights: Conservative Condensed and Out Of Context Edition.

/they skipped the part about militias, for one obvious thing

Well, actually, the part about the militias is a dependent clause and is merely a reason for, not a limitation upon, the Right (the part quoted as an independent clause, which can stand alone as a grammatically correct and complete sentence in its own right, unlike the part about the militias).

In basic English grammar, both then and now, for complex, compound, and (as the Second Amendment is), compound-complex sentences, any dependent clauses are merely illustrative or descriptive, and the only active part of the entire sentence is the independent clause (of which there can be only one).

"A well regulated Militia, necessary to the security of a free State," cannot stand alone as a grammatically complete and correct sentence in its own right. Therefore, it's a dependent clause (at best ― it has no clear verb, so it may not even qualify as a clause of any kind, but just a chain of phrases!).

"The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." can stand alone as a grammatically complete and correct sentence in its own right. Therefore, it's an independent clause, and the only legally active part of the Second Amendment.

Also, three consecutive pre-ratification drafts of the Second Amendment explicitly defined "Militia" as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

The boldfaced part was removed from the final version for one reason, and one reason only: because it was considered redundant, as everyone knew what the term "Militia" meant (in the idiom of the day ― they didn't know that it would change that much).


And then when you look at the writing of the Founders they described militias the way we describe military today. In other words, the same way we define militias today.
 
2012-08-01 03:22:42 PM

COMALite J: She comes in colors everywhere: ginandbacon: ust how big is this gun? Or did they mean the 2nd Amendment?

[i49.tinypic.com image 630x262]

The Bill Of Rights: Conservative Condensed and Out Of Context Edition.

/they skipped the part about militias, for one obvious thing

Well, actually, the part about the militias is a dependent clause and is merely a reason for, not a limitation upon, the Right (the part quoted as an independent clause, which can stand alone as a grammatically correct and complete sentence in its own right, unlike the part about the militias).

In basic English grammar, both then and now, for complex, compound, and (as the Second Amendment is), compound-complex sentences, any dependent clauses are merely illustrative or descriptive, and the only active part of the entire sentence is the independent clause (of which there can be only one).

"A well regulated Militia, necessary to the security of a free State," cannot stand alone as a grammatically complete and correct sentence in its own right. Therefore, it's a dependent clause (at best ― it has no clear verb, so it may not even qualify as a clause of any kind, but just a chain of phrases!).

"The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." can stand alone as a grammatically complete and correct sentence in its own right. Therefore, it's an independent clause, and the only legally active part of the Second Amendment.

Also, three consecutive pre-ratification drafts of the Second Amendment explicitly defined "Militia" as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

The boldfaced part was removed from the final version for one reason, and one reason only: because it was considered redundant, as everyone knew what the term "Militia" meant (in the idiom of the day ― they didn't know that it would change that much).


Final version:

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.
 
2012-08-01 03:26:41 PM

COMALite J: She comes in colors everywhere: ginandbacon: ust how big is this gun? Or did they mean the 2nd Amendment?

[i49.tinypic.com image 630x262]

The Bill Of Rights: Conservative Condensed and Out Of Context Edition.

/they skipped the part about militias, for one obvious thing

Well, actually, the part about the militias is a dependent clause and is merely a reason for, not a limitation upon, the Right (the part quoted as an independent clause, which can stand alone as a grammatically correct and complete sentence in its own right, unlike the part about the militias).

In basic English grammar, both then and now, for complex, compound, and (as the Second Amendment is), compound-complex sentences, any dependent clauses are merely illustrative or descriptive, and the only active part of the entire sentence is the independent clause (of which there can be only one).

"A well regulated Militia, necessary to the security of a free State," cannot stand alone as a grammatically complete and correct sentence in its own right. Therefore, it's a dependent clause (at best ― it has no clear verb, so it may not even qualify as a clause of any kind, but just a chain of phrases!).

"The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." can stand alone as a grammatically complete and correct sentence in its own right. Therefore, it's an independent clause, and the only legally active part of the Second Amendment.

Also, three consecutive pre-ratification drafts of the Second Amendment explicitly defined "Militia" as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

The boldfaced part was removed from the final version for one reason, and one reason only: because it was considered redundant, as everyone knew what the term "Militia" meant (in the idiom of the day ― they didn't know that it would change that much).


So we can just remove words and phrases that can't stand as independent sentences from the constitution and other laws now?
Sweet. Does that mean I can ignore "but upon probable cause" and other goodies?
 
2012-08-01 03:26:51 PM

deadcrickets: Final version:

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.


And keep in mind most of the founding fathers were vehemently against a standing army, so it would be necessary for militias to be well armed to protect the country from foreign invaders.
 
2012-08-01 03:28:15 PM

Sabyen91: deadcrickets: Final version:

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.

And keep in mind most of the founding fathers were vehemently against a standing army, so it would be necessary for militias to be well armed to protect the country from foreign invaders.


Correct. The standing army didn't come in until after King George Washington had already used an army against the Whiskey Rebellion.
 
2012-08-01 03:41:10 PM
As a raging liberal I'm starting to think I may need a gun. If for nothing else to protect against unhinged rightwing stand your ground types.

Look up Kenneth Roop, the latest whackjob to murder an unarmed door to door frozen steak/seafood saleman because he felt "threatened".
 
2012-08-01 03:48:05 PM

deadcrickets: Sabyen91: deadcrickets: Final version:

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.

And keep in mind most of the founding fathers were vehemently against a standing army, so it would be necessary for militias to be well armed to protect the country from foreign invaders.

Correct. The standing army didn't come in until after King George Washington had already used an army against the Whiskey Rebellion.


And it's a good thing it did come, since we soon had to deal with shoeless mouthbreathers who decided to murder Americans because they were too lazy to do their own work.
 
Displayed 50 of 96 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report