White House rules on Piers Morgan deportation

Yes, well we could say exactly the same of America. What gives America the right to meddle in the internal affairs of sovereign nations? That's right, nothing, and the USA was already prosecuted and found guilty by the ICJ for doing exactly that.
And we're doing nothing more scary than criticising you for your obsession with guns, and this absurd notion that the right to own them is somehow demonstrative of how 'free' you are.

 

A rather strange comment considering that Piers Morgan has a protected Right to express political opinion under the First Amendment.

 

Aid is fine, and it's usually requested. Deposing governments, for example-democratic governments at that-because it's the wrong kind of democracy, most definitely is not. Arming and supporting genocidal communists (Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge), most definitely is not. And you're getting pissy because someone dares voice an opinion about your prehistoric gun laws?

 

First of all someone in Britain telling America to stay out of other countries affairs is hypocricy at it's height. Your country wrote the book on how to colonize the world. When are you going to give the Falklands back ?

As far as our "obsession" with guns, if you lived here you would know that rights of firearm ownership run very deep, and is a sacred right.

 

Piers Morgan is in the United States and not in Britain and has a Right to express any beliefs he holds under the First Amendment. I do find it wierd that so many Americans were opposed to the First Amendment when they signed the petition. What's the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment if not to protect our other inalienable Rights such as Freedom of Speech? Those that signed the petition were hypocrites of the First Degree.

 

Your feelings about "your" constitution (it's mine too, in case you missed the god knows how many times I've pointed out that I am an American citizen) are ridiculous! Failure to recognize that free speech is fundamental to the very existence of a democracy while delegating power primarily to the states and the right to bear arms are not, and that therefore we can weight the value of the individual amendments within the bill of rights, is ridiculous. And then seemingly appealing to the idea that "the strength of the bill of rights comes from its composition rather than the ideas contained within" is even more ridiculous. What I find amazing is this idea you seem to have that the second amendment is equally important to the first.

 

They are both equally important. The 2nd Amendment has no meaning if the protections contained in the 1st Amendment don't exist and the 1st Amendment has no meaning if the means for the People to protect it provided by the 2nd Amendment don't exist. They are complimentary where both must exist at the same time.

 

Isnt piers morgan running from prosecution in england for wire taps and such?

 

I do have to laugh at the premise of this petition nonsense.

For starters, the entire thing, while perhaps noble in intentions, seems to have been taken over by the kook squad. Petitions to deport people? Why? Because they used words that someone found offensive?

Why would anyone think that they could have someone deported, someone who apparently is here legally, who has not done anythign wrong other than have a difference of opinion? It's silly, it's stupid, and it is, quite frankly, about as opposite of the values that this country was founded upon.

The very first amendment of the Constitution guarantees free speech. It does not guarantee that you will not be offended by the speech of someone else.

 

That's not true. There are numerous countries without such second amendment protections that simply don't have the kind of problems you and others would imply they should have. What you're saying is essentially "the first amendment has no meaning if it is not upheld". Duh. But the second amendment has no meaning if it is not upheld, but is still meaningless anyways!

 

Nope

You do realise he would just be arrested and send back?

 

Was there ever any doubt that this would be the. White House's (and any reasonable person's) answer to the crazies?

 

The stupidity and hypocracy of those that signed the petition is so self-evident as to be undeniable by any reasoning person. They endorse the 2nd Amendment but oppose the 1st Amendment's protection of Freedom of Speech. These are probably the same idiots that signed the petitions for several States to secede from the United States in violation of the US Constitution as well although I don't have a source that supports that assumption. I would merely believe that stupid idiots often commit many stupid acts as opposed to just commiting a single stupid act.

As Forrest Gump said, "Stupid is as stupid does" and these idiots meet that definition.

 

Or it wasn't fun at all depending on your perspective. It was a stupid, juvenile, publicity stunt aimed at titilating the lowest common denominator.

- - - Updated - - -

Well duh! Where have you been? Liberals HATE the Second Amendment...























































And conservatives HATE the FIrst...

 

If the host of a cocktail party kicks out an arrogant, boorish drunk, have they violated their 1st amendment rights?

 

If that host has legal obligations towards said drunk due to the cocktail party being an independent republic with a clearly defined set of rights granted to each person therein, and kicking that drunk out means that he loses his home and livelihood, and... you know what? Your analogy is pretty terrible.

 

My analogy is perfect, and is directed towards those who are throwing the "hypocrisy card" towards the annoyed "hosts" who signed the petition.

Speaking freely, though a constitutionally protected right, does not always come without negative reactions/consequences....

I give you the Phelps gang of Westboro Baptist Church and the "Koran-burning" preacher in Florida.

 

Or it was just a well deserved, long overdue, giant middle finger to both a person and an ideology that really needed a loud and public "(*)(*)(*)(*) you" as they had been inviting it for quite awhile.

I don't think Alex really expected this to succeed (okay, maybe he did because he's nuts, but I don't think anyone else really expected it), but the point wasn't really to get the guy deported. It was more to put him in check for being a jerk-off.

Yeah, it's too bad this isn't actually true. Who is it that tries to get Rush Limbaugh taken off the air when he calls someone a slut? I'll give you a hint; it ain't the conservatives. On the whole, conservatives are much more tolerant of other people's verbal idiocy than vice versa. Alex Jones is the exception to the rule. He's kind of the crazy uncle that stays locked in the basement that most of us usually try to distance ourselves from for good reason. In fact, the difference between us and liberals is that liberals don't distance themselves from the people like that on their side like Michael Moore. They won't call them crazy.

 

...Are you in a bad mood today or something? It seems like your posts have taken a turn for the... Well, rage-y. Not that I can blame you, of course.

And you know what? They aren't getting kicked out of the country (and do I have to bring up how inept the comparison between Piers Morgan and WBC/Terry Jones is?). Their persecution is entirely private in nature. Sure, their speech has consequences. The WBC is the most hated family in America, and essentially globally shunned. But there is no government action against them, and I wouldn't support it either. Oh, and here's another thing to add to your "host" metaphor: the host has laid down a very clear set of rules for the party, and the drunken, boorish guest has violated none of them. However, throwing someone out who has not violated any of those rules is definitely against the rules. And it isn't the host of the party trying to throw him out, it's a group of random, similarly-drunken jackasses.

...There. Now your comparison works.

 

CNN can fire Piers Morgan if it wants and that would not be a violation of his 1st Amendment Rights. That is a Right of the Owners of CNN and relates to Property Rights just as throwing a drunk out of one's home would related to Property Rights.

Now the US government is prohibited from throwing anyone out of the United States for expressing their personal/political opinions under the 1st Amendment. Remember that the US government does NOT OWN the United States but merely has authority for governing the United States. The People of the United States OWN the United States.

 

Hypocrites and those that oppose the inalienable Rights of the Person offend my sensibilities. I guess that sort of comes through sometimes.

 

Free association rights are protected by the 1st amendment, as well.....

some of the mocking and derisive comments in this thread; http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/284058-citadel-patriotic-community.html are presented by some of the same folks who are mocking and deriding the "petition" crowd's reaction to Morgan's rhetoric.

There's your effing hypocrisy.

 

Huh? I'm sorry, what? Mocking people on one hand for wanting the government to deport someone over speaking his mind - not yelling fire in a crowded theater, or advocating a new civil war, or issuing a fatwa, mind you, but speaking his mind over a contentious cultural issue - and mocking some other people for wanting to build a large, hyper-patriotic Waco 2.0 in the middle of nowhere which will, by nature, only be attractive to those who are already pretty crazy... I don't get the hypocrisy here.