Piers Morgan is a Retard
-
Jim Henson. Because only a Muppet would believe that guff.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Where, oh where is my +5... :)
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
As this will probably run afoul of the rule against discussing US politics, I don't expect it to last long. But I do want to agree with you that Piers Morgan is an idiot, for more reasons that you listed here.
True all of that. OT: Your username made me burst out laughing! Very Funny!
Bob Dole
The internet is a great way to get on the net.
:doh: 2.0.82.7292 SP6a
-
This isn't a case of looking it over now and again. This is a case of "keep on causing the debate until we get our way" (this action, of coarse, by the people who want to get rid of it). I work with a guy who does the same thing. Never says anything new, but will keep drilling away until someone agrees with him. My brothers x-wife was the same way. Call the cops 4-5 times a week until they decide what you want them to.
If it moves, compile it
loctrice wrote:
I work with a guy who does the same thing. Never says anything new, but will keep drilling away until someone agrees with him.
That's of course not ok. There are to sides about reviewing. It should lead to a result supported by the majority, but afterwards the discussion should stop until there is a bigger change, may be in the thinking or in the situation.
------------------------------ Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy". I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining). Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following: “Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation," "He's 100% right." “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.” I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan: The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..." Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *m
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
How can we - as veterans, public servants, and even more importantly, as AMERICANS - be expected fulfill our promise to support AND defend the Constitution if we don't have the proper tools with which to do so?
it's time to put those tools to use my friend. the little i know from your country's history says to me that this situations is exactly what the 2nd amendment was made to retain.
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)
