Piers Morgan "slams" down U.S. Constitution, says "Your little book" while getting baked.

page: 15
91
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Sorry,I guess you know the scene.You have it admit that was a funny scene.




posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 

then by all means, answer his question, i have no interest in such a childish exchange.


Many things can be leverage. And you don't have to be a gun owner to know the power a gun holds
true, so why state the contrary or question my reply to said statement ?

{the original statement posted by another was .... [color=amber]guns are not leverage }

prove what ??
and with what proof, my name, address, a map and a case number ?

no thanks. the newsmen already did that.
if you aren't skilled enough to find it on your own, sorry for your luck.


inFRINGEment is not gender specific
that too is correct but it isn't what I said


impingement is just that and when you reduce the available defenses any person has, you are impinging their ability to respond.

when the government acts against the rights of the people, that is inFRINGEment and could be considered a form of impingement but that's another topic ... perhaps you need a dictionary ?

look at Australia ??
no thanks ... i can still walk around at night, lightly armed (not a firearm) and without an escort, here. from what i'm reading, that experience in Australia is rapidly dwindling.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MisterMandlebrot
 



Can I be the one to give Piers Morgan the credit of interviewing people like Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura? If it werent for him there is a lot of alternative voices that wouldnt be heard on MSM.


I think there is something to that--He is like an anti-Rush Limbaugh in that way. Rush is against liberal stuff but the problem being brought up at all causes some reinforcement on both sides. Keeps both sides in their camps.

That is the major effect, but sometimes the side effects cause the changes.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by HairlessApe
 

then by all means, answer his question, i have no interest in such a childish exchange.


I would argue due to several of your previous posts that you do indeed cater to childish arguments. What question are you referring to?



Many things can be leverage. And you don't have to be a gun owner to know the power a gun holds
true, so why state the contrary or question my reply to said statement ?


You blatantly insinuated that you need a gun for leverage. You don't. That was my point.



prove what ??
and with what proof, my name, address, a map and a case number ?

no thanks. the newsmen already did that.
if you aren't skilled enough to find it on your own, sorry for your luck.


No, the burden of proof is on the party which makes the claim. You claimed that a "newsmen" proved your case. Okay, so link that. What's the problem? If you can't prove anything, why should I take your word for anything more than a B.S. claim?


inFRINGEment is not gender specific

^That was my original post, and I take ownership for my mistake.


that too is correct but it isn't what I said


impingement is just that and when you reduce the available defenses any person has, you are impinging their ability to respond.

when the government acts against the rights of the people, that is inFRINGEment and could be considered a form of impingement but that's another topic ... perhaps you need a dictionary ?


I corrected myself long before your reply, because I did use a dictionary. I was hasty in my response, but my point remains every bit as valid. You still claimed that impingement was gender specific. It isn't. And if you think it is, please explain why. As you said, impingement is a form of infringement. So don't resort to semantics to try and prove your point - actually prove it.



look at Australia ??
no thanks ... i can still walk around at night, lightly armed (not a firearm) and without an escort, here. from what i'm reading, that experience in Australia is rapidly dwindling.


Why wouldnt you look to an external source for statistical information? You obviously can't look here, because there are no statistics. Just curious. "That experience in Australia is dwindling" Well that's just blatantly incorrect. Link your source.
edit on 12-1-2013 by HairlessApe because: Getting my quotes and /quotes sorted out



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


You have to remember that Reagan was once a Democrat who moved right, and although he tried not to let the Shadow Govt rule completely, he was still under the influence of members of the CFR all around him, and the attempt on his life was a clear message that the Shadow Govt was not happy and they wanted him to do according to their desires.
He also caved to the amnesty program too.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint
Well his belittling of the constitution is quite justified. It's outdated and treated like no one would be free without it. It could be destroyed today and there would be no difference, if anything it's a hindrance because it blinds people from reality while they protect their "freedom".


If you have a problem with this country and the documents that created it, don't let the door hit you in the azz while leaving it! You are a traitor to this nation if you believe what you say to be true!
edit on 12-1-2013 by ajay59 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


You have to remember that Reagan was once a Democrat who moved right, and although he tried not to let the Shadow Govt rule completely, he was still under the influence of members of the CFR all around him, and the attempt on his life was a clear message that the Shadow Govt was not happy and they wanted him to do according to their desires.
He also caved to the amnesty program too.


Regardless of whether or not there is a Shadow Government, let's talk facts - not speculation.

Are you insinuating that anyone is purely left or purely right? That simply isn't so. Everyone, whether Democrat or Republican has some dissonance between their own stance and the stance of their political party.

Reagan was a very young man when he first became a Republican (which was in the early 50s) and quite an aged and experienced man when he held the presidency and was staunchly Republican (obviously the 80's)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by CX
 
Agreed. You'r point is worthy. However, the anti-British attitudes you mention are usually from the intellectually arrogant segment in America that only recently noticed an encroachment of their rights in such a way that mimics the unfortunate success in the U.K. What we see in america today is an apparent replay of the forces in Europe who uses the Hegelian Dialectic to attain "their" goals.
Although Pierce, along with too many of his British peers bought into the "we will forgo our rights for security" mantra... "for we are too civilized to be deceived by our own"...has allowed strict gun control and the big brother apparatus to micro-manage too much of their lives. This was obvious when Pierce needled Mr. Shapiro comments that the gum rights was/is necessary to repel unwanted rogue govt. policies.
Personally, i believe the people in the U.K. should do a better job of maintaining their rights. Hopefully you do too. But i, like so many others here in america, see following the same path as others in Europe, will ultimately be to our detriment. Especially now in the post 9-11 world.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


You have to remember that Reagan was once a Democrat who moved right, and although he tried not to let the Shadow Govt rule completely, he was still under the influence of members of the CFR all around him, and the attempt on his life was a clear message that the Shadow Govt was not happy and they wanted him to do according to their desires.
He also caved to the amnesty program too.


I'd be more inclined to believe he was shot to try and improve his decreasing ratings than that he was killed because he was a danger to any shadow govt. If the SG want you dead , you end up dead, so Ronnie was obviously still a useful idiot to them.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 
Hell...Reagan allowed Bush Sr., a NAZI by the way, access to the Oval Office. Bush "IS" shadow govt...lol. Welcome the the fascist state!!!!



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 

the one you claim there are answers to be provided.
by all means, be my guest.

here's the original question posed by another ...

Tell me how I'm any less free than you are, simply because I can't own firearms?

since i don't subscribe to the protocols of "can't", i have no answers for that question, y'all have to figure that out for yourselves.

i NEVER said i NEEDED a gun for leverage ... you lie.

it's not a 'claim' it's history and personal at that.
the public had their day and i owe no one proof of anything.


You claimed that a "newsmen" proved your case
never said any such thing ... you're getting good at this lying thing.

yeah so ??
i said it was a correct statement, in and of itself.
however, you attempted to correct mine without first comprehending what was actually said and appropriately at that ... how is that my error ?

corrected yourself ?? where ?
i must have missed that post.


You still claimed that impingement was gender specific
did i now ???


So don't resort to semantics to try and prove your point
yeah, that's good advice cause you're not very good at it


statistics ??
been there, done that, you can have'm, i'll keep my guns, thank you.
any chance you guys want Morgan ??? if so, you can have him ... he's pretty much worn out his welcome here.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FeatherofMaat
So amusing those that try to defend anyone from the breitbart goofball world. The Brietbart crony got slammed. But, it matters not whether you believe it, it matters what normal people think. Normal people realize the inanity of the Right Wing Bizzaro Crew.

I do find it amusing that the Right has elevated the Constitution to the SAME level that radical Muslims have elevated the Koran. Both sides would kill for a piece of paper.

I say put em all on an island and let em go after each other. The world, and Mankind, will be MUCH better off.


So are you saying that it is only the Right which defends our Constitution and the Left do not give a darn about it? Well, you just might be right there pal. I'd say the Left has their own little book too, it's called Rules For Radicals.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dagann
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 
Hell...Reagan allowed Bush Sr., a NAZI by the way, access to the Oval Office. Bush "IS" shadow govt...lol. Welcome the the fascist state!!!!



I guess the devil is in the details. Reagan did not want Bush at all, but the GOP basically made that decision for him.
While Bush Sr is a member of Skull and Bones, to my knowledge he is not a member of the Nazi Party, although his father did business with them.


Once a CIA chief, Bush Sr. was the consummate insider and a valued member of the Anglosphere power elite. There is an apocryphal story that claims Ronald Reagan was visited by Henry Kissinger on the night of his nomination and threatened with various personal and political consequences if he did not name Bush Sr. as his Vice President.
While Reagan had often claimed that he would set the presidency free from the reign of insiders from the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, he surprised his supporters by giving in that same night and placing Bush Sr. on the ticket with him.

Reagan went on to win election and began to implement some of his free-market oriented ideas. There remains the abiding suspicion that somehow the Bushes and their insider friends had something to do with Reagan's shooting by John Hinkley in 1982.

The Bushes were friends with the Hinkleys and one of Bush's sons had lunch with Hinkley's father the day before the shooting. Additionally there remain questions about the shooting itself.

www.thedailybell.com...




I do agree with you 100% that Bush Sr is Shadow Govt.
edit on 12-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Morgan is nothing more than the Illuminatis ,Rothchilds,Rockefellers,Kissingers ,little bumboy



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by HairlessApe
 

the one you claim there are answers to be provided.
by all means, be my guest.

here's the original question posed by another ...

Tell me how I'm any less free than you are, simply because I can't own firearms?

since i don't subscribe to the protocols of "can't", i have no answers for that question, y'all have to figure that out for yourselves.

i NEVER said i NEEDED a gun for leverage ... you lie.

it's not a 'claim' it's history and personal at that.
the public had their day and i owe no one proof of anything.


You claimed that a "newsmen" proved your case
never said any such thing ... you're getting good at this lying thing.

yeah so ??
i said it was a correct statement, in and of itself.
however, you attempted to correct mine without first comprehending what was actually said and appropriately at that ... how is that my error ?

corrected yourself ?? where ?
i must have missed that post.


You still claimed that impingement was gender specific
did i now ???


So don't resort to semantics to try and prove your point
yeah, that's good advice cause you're not very good at it


statistics ??
been there, done that, you can have'm, i'll keep my guns, thank you.
any chance you guys want Morgan ??? if so, you can have him ... he's pretty much worn out his welcome here.


1. You don't even read your own posts. You're so blatantly wrong it's disgusting.
2. I quoted you on everything I claimed. Period.
3. Why would I want to be good at semantics? That's a fool's profession.
4. You haven't answered a single question of mine. You dance around every single one of them. This will be my last post in response to you, because you have no actual points - you just rant about Piers Morgan going back home, make claims, don't support them, and decidedly ignore all evidence that opposes your viewpoint.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Did you think that was also the reason JFK was assassinated?



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ajay59

Originally posted by SpearMint
Well his belittling of the constitution is quite justified. It's outdated and treated like no one would be free without it. It could be destroyed today and there would be no difference, if anything it's a hindrance because it blinds people from reality while they protect their "freedom".


If you have a problem with this country and the documents that created it, don't let the door hit you in the azz while leaving it! You are a traitor to this nation if you believe what you say to be true!
edit on 12-1-2013 by ajay59 because: (no reason given)


I argue that this country was founded on the principal that ALL ideas should be given the time of day. Most of us do cherish the constitution and all that it stands for, however, it is not un-American to disagree with that sentiment. Let the man be heard. His point is a little unlearned, but there is some wisdom in it. Politicians do often ignore the constitution - can you argue that?



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Did you think that was also the reason JFK was assassinated?


Somebody just watched "Dark Legacy."

Can we please stay -somewhat- on point? This isn't a forum about who killed Kennedy or which president is involved in the NWO, it's about the debate on gun laws between Piers Morgan and his guest.
edit on 12-1-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Piers Morgan seems fairly intelligent and definitely knows what he's talking about, I'm not so sure on this issue though. As long as it's not about banning personal handguns, I'll say let congress make the mad decision of passing through an assault rifle ban, they'll only get high resistance from the right (as usual) and high support from the left (as usual)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bronto
Morgan is nothing more than the Illuminatis ,Rothchilds,Rockefellers,Kissingers ,little bumboy


I am laughing because I read of that and think of the Morgan smirk, a smirking bumboy at that.






top topics
 
91
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join