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.

(USA Today)   How do you identify 32,000 morons?   (usatoday.com) divider line 38
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

20951 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Dec 2012 at 3:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-24 03:41:34 PM
7 votes:
Can we deport Piers Morgan anyway? Not for the gun thing, just in general.
2012-12-24 03:59:06 PM
5 votes:
4-ps.googleusercontent.com
2012-12-24 04:32:45 PM
4 votes:
Well, let's see, Piers is a resident alien demanding a change in the US constitution and using his position as media figure to attempt to influence American politics(and getting a whopping 500K viewers). In other countries this is known as subversion or even espionage. He's can't be charged with treason, least of all because he's not an American citizen and bound by no oath to be faithful to the country, BUT he can be deported for all of those things if you want to get technical.
2012-12-24 03:39:24 PM
4 votes:
I'd approve deporting Piers Morgan with or without his comments about gun control.
2012-12-24 03:38:56 PM
4 votes:
Ignore the 1st amendment to uphold the 2nd. You are doing it wrong...
2012-12-24 01:57:11 PM
4 votes:

cman: It is not treasonous to say that you want to secede because you are using words.


Talking about committing treason and talking about modifying our gun laws are qualitatively different things.
2012-12-24 01:32:57 PM
4 votes:

cman: kxs401: cman: Look up the definition of treason. It is the only criminal statute encoded into our constitution. Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The American people are not the enemy of the United States. Speaking out in favor of leaving the United States is not treason.

I don't need to look it up. Treason also includes making war against the United States, which no one can secede without doing.

Reread my original statement. I was talking about people speaking, invoking their free speech rights. No one can be convicted of treason for words. After that reread my reply. Look at my context and please respond in kind. Thank you.


I was talking about the petitions being for two different things, ya doof. It was a false equivalency, which is a conservative's favorite kind of equivalency.
2012-12-24 12:01:52 PM
4 votes:

cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech


Not really equivalent. Secession is treason.
2012-12-24 06:58:47 PM
2 votes:

AssAsInAssassin: pla: AssAsInAssassin

"The Congress shall have Power ...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..."

You understand, of course, that amendments to the constitution supersede those portions of the constitution that came prior to them, right?

So, for example, black people and indians no longer count as only 3/5ths of a human for the purpose of representational apportionment.

Though in fairness, I made an appeal to a document predating the constitution itself - Though more in the hopes of helping you understand that this has nothing to do with the evil, evil NRA twisting the holy words of our Founding Fathers.

So you're saying that the well regulated militia  in the 2nd Amendment
1) is not the same militia as in the body of the constitution, and
2) requires unfettered access to asault rifles?

What do you think "well regulated" means? Any yokel with a hankerin' to shoot an AK 47? Or do you think it's an essentially meaningless phrase put there for the sole purpose of confusing people?


The term "well regulated" referred to well trained and practiced when you look at the context of the day and the circa 1789 definition of the term.

Also militia were made up of ordinary citizens with their own firearms.

You do realize that actual assault rifles (not rifles that just happen to look like them) are in fact illegal to own in most instances.

Madison said it best:

(The Constitution)... preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

(James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

If you read the documents of the time the intent was clearly for an individual right to own firearms to protect against a runaway government. After all we had just fought a bloody rebellion against a tyrannical king.
2012-12-24 04:52:12 PM
2 votes:

pla: It very, very specifically does not mean that. At its weakest, you could claim it refers to each state having its own standing army - But even that interpretation requires totally castrating its original intent.


Federalist #29

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
2012-12-24 04:29:43 PM
2 votes:

pla: I don't think I've ever seen such a good example of double-edged irony...

First, we have Piers Morgan abusing his first amendment rights to attack our second amendment rights.


Speaking your mind is not an abuse of the First Amendment. It's the whole farking point.
pla
2012-12-24 04:22:57 PM
2 votes:
AssAsInAssassin : It started when the NRA

Er, no, sorry. It most certainly did not - The issue of whether or not to have a fully-armed populace predates the constitution itself. Read your Federalist papers before talking about what "well regulated militia" means - Most notably,

under the authority of the president and congress

It very, very specifically does not mean that. At its weakest, you could claim it refers to each state having its own standing army - But even that interpretation requires totally castrating its original intent.
2012-12-24 03:53:13 PM
2 votes:
In the spirit of negotiation and since it's the Xmas season, I'll make you 30,000+ people an offer:

www.nbc.com
We deport him

IF

This guy goes too
www.eonline.com

Deal?
I'll even start a WH petition if y'all game.
2012-12-24 03:40:32 PM
2 votes:

cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech


One of those groups is not like the other. If they want to leave, they should just farking DO IT!
2012-12-24 02:05:38 PM
2 votes:

cman: kxs401: cman: It is not treasonous to say that you want to secede because you are using words.

Talking about committing treason and talking about modifying our gun laws are qualitatively different things.

Talking is the key word. Wanting to deport someone because they were talking is stupid.


Yes. But not nearly as stupid as wanting to deport someone for talking about gun control.
2012-12-24 01:16:04 PM
2 votes:

cman: Look up the definition of treason. It is the only criminal statute encoded into our constitution. Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The American people are not the enemy of the United States. Speaking out in favor of leaving the United States is not treason.


I don't need to look it up. Treason also includes making war against the United States, which no one can secede without doing.
2012-12-24 12:05:08 PM
2 votes:

kxs401: cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech

Not really equivalent. Secession is treason.


Look up the definition of treason. It is the only criminal statute encoded into our constitution. Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The American people are not the enemy of the United States. Speaking out in favor of leaving the United States is not treason.

Vodka Zombie: cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech

Is Morgan saying that he wants to leave? Is Morgan petitioning the government to allow him to leave?

Wow. I feel like the answer to those difficult questions is NO. It's almost like your tattered brain is lacking an adult's ability to think in even slightly abstract terms.


The fact that people are demanding that others be deported for the exercise of free speech should be quite unnerving. Doesnt matter what the message is; asking others to be deported because of words is completely idiotic
2012-12-24 12:01:42 PM
2 votes:

cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech


Is Morgan saying that he wants to leave? Is Morgan petitioning the government to allow him to leave?

Wow. I feel like the answer to those difficult questions is NO. It's almost like your tattered brain is lacking an adult's ability to think in even slightly abstract terms.
2012-12-24 10:55:37 AM
2 votes:
Oh come on, there can't be that many TF subscribers.
pc
2012-12-24 09:06:39 PM
1 votes:
img541.imageshack.us
FTFY
2012-12-24 05:22:02 PM
1 votes:

pla: AssAsInAssassin

"The Congress shall have Power ...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..."

You understand, of course, that amendments to the constitution supersede those portions of the constitution that came prior to them, right?

So, for example, black people and indians no longer count as only 3/5ths of a human for the purpose of representational apportionment.

Though in fairness, I made an appeal to a document predating the constitution itself - Though more in the hopes of helping you understand that this has nothing to do with the evil, evil NRA twisting the holy words of our Founding Fathers.


So you're saying that the well regulated militia  in the 2nd Amendment
1) is not the same militia as in the body of the constitution, and
2) requires unfettered access to asault rifles?

What do you think "well regulated" means? Any yokel with a hankerin' to shoot an AK 47? Or do you think it's an essentially meaningless phrase put there for the sole purpose of confusing people?
2012-12-24 04:34:50 PM
1 votes:

yyrkoon: Ignore the 1st amendment to uphold the 2nd. You are doing it wrong...


Oh look another person who doesn't understand what the first amendment is.
2012-12-24 04:34:43 PM
1 votes:

pla: I don't think I've ever seen such a good example of double-edged irony...

First, we have Piers Morgan abusing his first amendment rights to attack our second amendment rights.

Then... We have 32,000 morons using the second half of their first amendment rights (petitioning the government for redress of grievances), to criticizing Piers Morgan for using the first half of his first amendment right (freedom of speech and the press).

Alanis Morissette's head (ca. 1996) just blew up.


Unless I missed something Piers Morgan is a British subject not a US citizen and as such technically enjoys no protection under the 1st amendment. Therefore he can't abuse his right to it since he has no right to it. Just a small point.
2012-12-24 04:03:22 PM
1 votes:

dognose4: [4-ps.googleusercontent.com image 627x374]


You're "special", aren't you?
pla
2012-12-24 03:57:08 PM
1 votes:
I don't think I've ever seen such a good example of double-edged irony...

First, we have Piers Morgan abusing his first amendment rights to attack our second amendment rights.

Then... We have 32,000 morons using the second half of their first amendment rights (petitioning the government for redress of grievances), to criticizing Piers Morgan for using the first half of his first amendment right (freedom of speech and the press).

Alanis Morissette's head (ca. 1996) just blew up.
2012-12-24 03:56:20 PM
1 votes:
Does it just have to Morgan??? Can we add to the list like Justin Beiber, the Kardashians, Rosie O'Donnell, Honey Boo Boo...
2012-12-24 03:52:20 PM
1 votes:
This is just silly. And some thing to kill time on the news cycle. Carry on.
2012-12-24 03:50:24 PM
1 votes:

tetsoushima: Wayne 985: Can we deport Piers Morgan anyway? Not for the gun thing, just in general.

He is kind of a prat.


I agree. Where do I sign?

Can we send Nancy Grace and a Bill O'reilly too?
2012-12-24 03:49:51 PM
1 votes:
I think you'd have to be a moron to give Piers Morgan any attention at all. He's not exactly some kind of serious journalist, doesn't he report on celebrity fashion or some other crap?
2012-12-24 03:47:04 PM
1 votes:
@JeremyClarkson
Americans. It took us 40 years to get rid of Piers Morgan. Please don't send him back.
2012-12-24 03:43:28 PM
1 votes:

Wayne 985: Can we deport Piers Morgan anyway? Not for the gun thing, just in general.


He is kind of a prat.
2012-12-24 03:41:56 PM
1 votes:

cman: kxs401: cman: kxs401: cman: It is not treasonous to say that you want to secede because you are using words.

Talking about committing treason and talking about modifying our gun laws are qualitatively different things.

Talking is the key word. Wanting to deport someone because they were talking is stupid.

Yes. But not nearly as stupid as wanting to deport someone for talking about gun control.

You ain't getting the last word in this discussion


But wanting to deport Pier Morgan could be a crime against humanity, just ask someone in the UK.
2012-12-24 03:40:08 PM
1 votes:
Easy. Pick any 32,000 people.
2012-12-24 03:39:34 PM
1 votes:
They misspelled derport.
2012-12-24 01:36:13 PM
1 votes:

kxs401: cman: kxs401: cman: Look up the definition of treason. It is the only criminal statute encoded into our constitution. Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The American people are not the enemy of the United States. Speaking out in favor of leaving the United States is not treason.

I don't need to look it up. Treason also includes making war against the United States, which no one can secede without doing.

Reread my original statement. I was talking about people speaking, invoking their free speech rights. No one can be convicted of treason for words. After that reread my reply. Look at my context and please respond in kind. Thank you.

I was talking about the petitions being for two different things, ya doof. It was a false equivalency, which is a conservative's favorite kind of equivalency.


It's not a false equivalency. Subject matter is moot. It is about people speaking. People speaking. People speaking. People speaking. It is not treasonous to say that you want to secede because you are using words.
2012-12-24 11:43:04 AM
1 votes:
1/2 of the crowd at a Steelers game?
2012-12-24 11:37:47 AM
1 votes:
Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech
2012-12-24 11:29:18 AM
1 votes:
I don't know, how many adults post in the WWE thread again?
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report