• Capitol Police not amused by The Onion
    63 replies, posted
[QUOTE=The fox;32581000]Obviously, if a newspaper reports on something quite as serious, something that could potentially harm the reputation amongst the people, irregardless of how stupid of a claim it is, by a newspaper nonetheless, and as far as I call, shitting on other peoples name weren't covered by free speech, I could definitely understand why they'd take it seriously, if not only for that reason. Though, should any conviction come out of it, I would be quite surprised. Though, Andokool12, is that your age? and Cccritical, why don't you post in the thread and tell me what exactly you disagree with? Instead of just dumping a rating on me.[/QUOTE] Uh. You don't get it. It's basically stating that Congress is taking America hostage if they don't get everything they want.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;32581380]basically everything you've posted about how someone could take this shit seriously[/QUOTE] As I have mentioned, as far as the security branch of the government goes, this should be taken serious, as it could incite further hate into certain people who take people who spread these lies seriously. It would be a bit like you questioning why a Nazis/Communists are being watched by the FBI/CIA. Both of these usually spread lies well beyond what is actually happening, which can be a security risk, especially when it is against the congress/president etc, which I assume is another reason why they are taking this seriously. Even more so when you have the first ever president that isn't white, and that does some things that are generally unfavored amongst a certain group. I can't say I have a one hundred percent understand of how the CIA/FBI/NSA/**PD works, though, I can only assume they take things like this seriously because of the ages, You have reverting groups of conservatives who absolutely despise Obama and his politics; in a world where progress is the key. I can only assume they are on a constant alert for anything that might seem like a threat to congress or the president, irregardless of how stupid or small it may be percieved by the general public. And as long as they are not shut down for what they say, but merely investigated, so that none wishes to cause panic or suchlike by what they say; which could very well fall into the definition of terrorism due to the PATRIOT-Act, which I do find quite stupid. Should they actually be convicted of anything for using free speech though; then it is clearly a outrage.
[QUOTE=The fox;32581350]Well, I am drunk, so I guess that could count towards that. On a second note, I haven't seen you posting at all in this thread, so what exactly are you meaning I am stupid in regards to? Hello Trainbike, don't want to post in the thread and actually have a discussion? That's fine with me, bro.[/QUOTE] No, your not drunk, your grammar is perfectly fine. Don't use that as an excuse for thinking everyone is so stupid they'd take comedians very seriously, thats complete bull-shit sonny. [QUOTE=The fox;32581283]I, personally, have never listened to Colbert. Though, should he present extreme right or left wing views, I would not be too surprised if the security branch of the government has him under some kind of watch. As as far as I can recall, the Freedom of Speech only includes such speeches that does not incite hate; should his speech do so, I would not be surprised if he is being watch, indeed. However, the security branch of the government, nor the government itself, should never have the power to shut down or limit a individual; radio; tv channel; news paper to stop say what he/she/it/they wishes to.[/QUOTE] BTW Freedom of speech does let you have hate speech you know, just search "Westboro baptist church". Oh and this is America, your in SWEDEN.
[QUOTE=J!NX;32581547]No, your not drunk, your grammar is perfectly fine. Don't use that as an excuse for thinking everyone is so stupid they'd take comedians very seriously, thats complete bull-shit sonny. BTW Freedom of speech does let you have hate speech you know, just search "Westboro baptist church" Oh and this is America, your in SWEDEN.[/QUOTE] You took the joker pretty serious, didn't you, bro? yeah. precisely. On the subject of Westboro, while I may be a bit biased on that subject, I would say what they say do fall under Freedom of Speech; Alternatively their right to practice their religion. And yeah, I know, feels p. bad man.
Is this a joke? You think government security agencies should keep watch on people that make 'hate-inciting' claims because they MIGHT be taken seriously?
[QUOTE=The fox;32581576]You took the joker pretty serious, didn't you, bro? yeah. precisely. On the subject of Westboro, while I may be a bit biased on that subject, I would say what they say do fall under Freedom of Speech; Alternatively their right to practice their religion.[/QUOTE] Do I even need to mention the KKK and neo-nazi's, or even hate speechs on gays, blacks, hell, even kids saying [url=http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1128460]this shit[/url], and everything never even touching the government and only getting public responses? And its extremely hard to sense sarcasm, and not only that, that was a pretty blunt statement, not a joke, obviously not a joke, and NOT set up like a joke, stop trying to get out of that one.
[QUOTE=TheLolrus;32581590]Is this a joke? You think government security agencies should keep watch on people that make 'hate-inciting' claims because they MIGHT be taken seriously?[/QUOTE] As long as they are merely watched. I mean, would you disagree with having extreme right wing/left wing groups being watched? As long as they are only being watched; they have a right, just as everyone else on this green earth, to express their opinions, irregardless of who it might piss off, though, should they attempt to incite hate or do any other criminal action, they should obviously be taken down. As long as their private conversations aren't being monitored, and so on, I don't really see a problem. [QUOTE=J!NX;32581616]Do I even need to mention the KKK and neo-nazi's, or even hate speechs on gays, blacks, hell, even kids saying [url=http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1128460]this shit[/url], and everything never even touching the government and only getting public responses? And its extremely hard to sense sarcasm, and not only that, that was a pretty blunt statement, not a joke, obviously not a joke, and NOT set up like a joke, stop trying to get out of that one.[/QUOTE] Well, you know, I am bisexual; I have black-brown hair and I have brown eyes; I take great offense to what the KKK, Neo-Nazis etc say about the kinds of me, and so on, however, I respect their right to say what they wish to say. Obviously, I can only assume they are all being watched by either the local PD, FBI or the CIA, or the NSA, however, as long as they are merely being watched, and aren't infringed upon their rights as a human being, I do not see a problem with it. They can say what they want; They can acquire the arms they way and do what they want; and they can be investigated for it; they should. However, the second the government or any security branch thereof lays a hand on them; for something that is their right from birth; that is an outrage and should never, ever be tolerated, irregardless of their message.
[QUOTE=The fox;32581628]As long as they are merely watched. I mean, would you disagree with having extreme right wing/left wing groups being watched? As long as they are only being watched; they have a right, just as everyone else on this green earth, to express their opinions, irregardless of who it might piss off, though, should they attempt to incite hate or do any other criminal action, they should obviously be taken down. As long as their private conversations aren't being monitored, and so on, I don't really see a problem.[/QUOTE] Being watched but not privately monitored? I think people actually do that, it's called "watching TV."
[QUOTE=The fox;32581628]As long as they are merely watched. I mean, would you disagree with having extreme right wing/left wing groups being watched? As long as they are only being watched; they have a right, just as everyone else on this green earth, to express their opinions, irregardless of who it might piss off, though, should they attempt to incite hate or do any other criminal action, they should obviously be taken down. As long as their private conversations aren't being monitored, and so on, I don't really see a problem.[/QUOTE] do you even know what it is for the government to 'watch' somebody? it's not like they just sit outside your house and watch your windows
[QUOTE=The fox;32581628]As long as they are merely watched. I mean, would you disagree with having extreme right wing/left wing groups being watched? As long as they are only being watched; they have a right, just as everyone else on this green earth, to express their opinions, irregardless of who it might piss off, though, should they attempt to incite hate or do any other criminal action, they should obviously be taken down. As long as their private conversations aren't being monitored, and so on, I don't really see a problem.[/QUOTE] the Onion doesn't give anyone hate speeches, they crack jokes and screw around and what do you even mean "Watch"
If the Onion posted about how it's good to kill blacks and that all of the readers should rise up to do so then yeah an investigation is in order if it appeared people were listening But they wrote a satire article about a politician
[QUOTE=Valdor;32581654]do you even know what it is for the government to 'watch' somebody? it's not like they just sit outside your house and watch your windows[/QUOTE] My definition of what the government is allowed to view is that they are allowed to view you on public grounds. Should you fence off a area, call it private property; host a private gathering or party or have a private conversation; either via phone, mail, private messaging or the like; then that is off limits. What you do in public, if you wave your dick around while screaming that the second of Jesus is right around the corner, then the government has all its right to view that. However, should you do the same in the comfort of your private house/apartment/whatever, then they have absolutely no right to. [QUOTE=J!NX;32581661]the Onion doesn't give anyone hate speeches, they crack jokes and screw around and what do you even mean "Watch"[/QUOTE] Well, that is the problem, you Americans have a black president, regardless of whatever anyone may think of it; it is completely new. The whole presidential bloodline running from the first one to George Bush have all been white; and while this is unfortunate, the movements against such people still has some strongholds throughout America, while yes, they should be able to say that they hate the president and so on, I can only assume that whatever security agency is on this, is on a heighten state of alert due to Obama being black. Monitoring these groups, while not doing anything about it, as far as a European; I would not see that as anything bad. The day, however, that the CIA/FBI/NSA/**PD bursts through these peoples doors and charge them with a crime related to what they have said, I would condemn such acts, because that is clearly limiting their right that any human has of free speech. This, however, has not done so, it is merely a investigation. Obviously, if they actually limit the newspapers ability to spread their ideas and thoughts in any way; irregardless of what they say; then it is clearly a violation of their birthright of free speech. I do not disagree with that, I merely disagree with the fact that a mere investigation into it is anything bad.
Anything can be taken the wrong way, thus government should watch everything.
[QUOTE=Jookia;32581717]Anything can be taken the wrong way, thus government should watch everything.[/QUOTE] yeah except the government alone can't even watch themselves how the hell do you think they'll watch everything
[QUOTE=The fox;32581715][B]My definition of what the government is allowed to view is that they are allowed to view you on public grounds. Should you fence off a area, call it private property; host a private gathering or party or have a private conversation; either via phone, mail, private messaging or the like; then that is off limits. What you do in public, if you wave your dick around while screaming that the second of Jesus is right around the corner, then the government has all its right to view that. However, should you do the same in the comfort of your private house/apartment/whatever, then they have absolutely no right to. [/B] Well, that is the problem, you Americans have a black president, regardless of whatever anyone may think of it; it is completely new. The whole bloodline running from the first one to George Bush have all been white; and while this is unfortunate, the movements against such people still has some strongholds throughout America, while yes, they should be able to say that they hate the president and so on, I can only assume that whatever security agency is on this, is on a heighten state of alert due to Obama being black. Monitoring these groups, while not doing anything about it, as far as a European; I would not see that as anything bad. The day, however, that the CIA/FBI/NSA/**PD bursts through these peoples doors and charge them with a crime related to what they have said, I would condemn such acts, because that is clearly limiting their right that any human has of free speech. This, however, has not done so, it is merely a investigation. Obviously, if they actually limit the newspapers ability to spread their ideas and thoughts in any way; irregardless of what they say; then it is clearly a violation of their birthright of free speech. I do not disagree with that, I merely disagree with the fact that a mere investigation into it is anything bad.[/QUOTE] ok cool but that's not what they do
[QUOTE=Valdor;32581900]ok cool but that's not what they do[/QUOTE] Well, The Onion is a free newspaper? As far as I know, anyways, they are well within their rights to investigate whether this particular article has any real world ties to any threat to Congress and/or the president. Unless I am missing something in my drunken stupor? If so, please enlighten me; the inner workings of the American government is quite a sticky web to get around.
The Onion is not a newspaper. Newspapers report news.
Questioning a satirical newspaper's credibility is something I expect from a government entity, so this really isn't a big deal.
The Onion has never presented itself as an accurate source of information.
[QUOTE=The fox;32581928]Well, The Onion is a free newspaper? As far as I know, anyways, they are well within their rights to investigate whether this particular article has any real world ties to any threat to Congress and/or the president. [B]Unless I am missing something in my drunken stupor?[/B] If so, please enlighten me; the inner workings of the American government is quite a sticky web to get around.[/QUOTE] You just said your being drunk was a joke, then said this make up your mind and its CLEARLY SATIRE, the onion is a joke, no ones going to take them seriously [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire[/url] [url]http://www.theonion.com/[/url] [B]and even if they had news papers, it'd have to be ordered online anyways and paid for, the person would KNOW by then its 100% satire.[/B]
[QUOTE=J!NX;32582022]You just said your being drunk was a joke, then said this make up your mind and its CLEARLY SATIRE, the onion is a joke, no ones going to take them seriously [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire[/url][/QUOTE] I can assure you, I have had quite a few beers and drinks; Should you require that of me, I can take a picture of the empty beer cans and bottles standing right next to me. As far as I can tell, J!NX was ever the only one questioning me being drunk; as I merely mentioned it once, when I said I was drunk. Irregardless, while the majority would merely disregard the Onion as a satire and a joke; there could be the potential of a screwup; of someone taking it seriously and acting based upon it, thusly creating a threat against the Congress and the President; if you really want to stretch it far, then thusly creating a threat against the nation as a whole. Though, I do not.
[QUOTE=The fox;32582053]I can assure you, I have had quite a few beers and drinks; Should you require that of me, I can take a picture of the empty beer cans and bottles standing right next to me. Irregardless, while the majority would merely disregard the Onion as a satire and a joke; there could be the potential of a screwup; of someone taking it seriously and acting based upon it, thusly creating a threat against the Congress and the President; if you really want to stretch it far, then thusly creating a threat against the nation as a whole. Though, I do not.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=J!NX;32581547]No, your not drunk, your grammar is perfectly fine. Don't use that as an excuse for thinking everyone is so stupid they'd take comedians very seriously, thats complete bull-shit sonny.[/QUOTE] no you aren't and your posting way way too fast to be "drunk", your using it as an excuse to not look like an idiot, making you look like an even BIGGER idiot also, read your past posts, long before this you posted in this exact style stop
Are you really saying that because people may interpret something wrong, the government should watch the comedy newspaper, who have nothing to do with the people who may go postal?
[QUOTE=J!NX;32582068]no you aren't and your posting way way too fast to be "drunk"[/QUOTE] Well, I have had countless of 8.5% beers, a few Cuba Libres, two 5.x% beers. Certainly, I might not be completely wasted, though, I would say I am rather drunk as I would not do this under normal, sober, circumstances. [QUOTE=Jookia;32582085]Are you really saying that because people may interpret something wrong, the government should watch the comedy newspaper, who have nothing to do with the people who may go postal?[/QUOTE] Well, I am European, I suppose we are used to a lot of heavier surveillance than say, Americans are used to. As long as the government is merely monitoring, though, I do not see a problem with it. Obviously, if they barge into the group while they are having a legally rightful meeting or anything even remotely close to that; then it is obviously a violation of their birthrights. However, should the FBI/NSA/**PD/CIA break in when they are loading anti-tank weaponary and discussing plans about blowing up Capitol Hill, then I would say that it is justified for such a raid to happen; so as long as anti-tank and so on weaponry is forbidden. Though, I can assure you, [url]http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/6127/dsc0004bv.jpg[/url] ,I do feel quite drunk. Perhaps I just hold it back better than a 14 year old who's just downed a bottle of Everclear? I do find it quite interesting how attempts are made to derail this, even though, as far as I can tell, I keep my composure, to derail it into wheter I am drunk or not; or wheter or not I return to my old posts and repost things from there.
[QUOTE=The fox;32582094]Well, I am European, I suppose we are used to a lot of heavier surveillance than say, Americans are used to. As long as the government is merely monitoring, though, I do not see a problem with it. Obviously, if they barge into the group while they are having a legally rightful meeting or anything even remotely close to that; then it is obviously a violation of their birthrights. However, should the FBI/NSA/**PD/CIA break in when they are loading anti-tank weaponary and discussing plans about blowing up Capitol Hill, then I would say that it is justified for such a raid to happen; so as long as anti-tank and so on weaponry is forbidden.[/QUOTE] I'm glad the government is putting taxpayer money to good use by monitoring comedy newspapers. Oh wait, they're in $12 trillion debt.
[url]http://www.theonion.com/articles/longtime-coffee-shop-employee-thought-customers-wo,26227/[/url] and you think it should be watched anyone that takes the onion serious when those are daily articles is non-existance [QUOTE=Jookia;32582151]I'm glad the government is putting taxpayer money to good use by monitoring comedy newspapers. Oh wait, they're in $12 trillion debt.[/QUOTE] you never know they could plot something against the swedish using nuclear swatches [editline]1st October 2011[/editline] comedy should be taken [B][I]very seriously[/I][/B]
Glad to see the American government has its priorities straight.
[QUOTE=The fox;32581000]Obviously, if a newspaper reports on something quite as serious, something that could potentially harm the reputation amongst the people, irregardless of how stupid of a claim it is, by a newspaper nonetheless, and as far as I call, shitting on other peoples name weren't covered by free speech, I could definitely understand why they'd take it seriously, if not only for that reason. Though, should any conviction come out of it, I would be quite surprised.[/QUOTE] dude it's the onion
[QUOTE=Nikota;32580655]It's probably two guys sitting in the office laughing their ass off. Best weekend job ever. [editline]2nd October 2011[/editline] [img]http://o.onionstatic.com/images/articles/article/26/26207/Congress_Takes-R_jpg_600x1000_q85.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] That little girls face: awww. And well, the FBI did once investigate the song "Louie Louie" for possible communist subversion.
the fox are you really this dumb?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.