U.S. constitution gets a warning label - by PeeperStorm
Rug Burn Junky on 13/6/2010 at 18:41
It's kinda fun watching the Tea Party idjits lose their shit over innocuous boilerplate.
Especially since it's simplistic tards getting their panties in a twist over a publisher saying "don't let your kids be simplistic tards."
Renzatic on 13/6/2010 at 19:00
Most people can't seem to win for losing these days. On one hand, slapping a sign of the time warning label on the documents will stir up a pot and cause RBJ's aforementioned Tea Partiers to freak out over absolutely nothing. On the other hand, you know some hippy type will read their constitutional history and eventually come across the 3/5ths compromise. You know he'll then start a bitch spree about how he can't support a country founded on racist ideals.
IMPORTATION OF PERSONS? MY GOD! SOMEONE SHOULD PUT A WARNING LABEL ON THIS TRIPE! A WARNING LABEL ON MY CONSTITUTION? DON'T TREAD ON ME YOU ABORTION SUPPORTING MOTHERFUCKER!
Politics.
CCCToad on 13/6/2010 at 19:18
Saw it, thats just stupid.
First, its a historical document, so of COURSE it isn't going to elicit the same reactions now as it did in the past. Second, its still binding law. Any of the passages in the constitution can be cited as primary legal authority, and they frequently are(in conjunction with relevant SCOTUS cases, of course).
Jason Moyer on 13/6/2010 at 19:19
It's a shame they don't publish religious texts.
AR Master on 13/6/2010 at 20:21
I really can't think of what could be offensive about it other than to total idiots. The idea of a Creator... gun ownership... freedom of the press... free speech...?
NOT IN MY RACIST BIGOTED CONSTITUTION
Demetros on 13/6/2010 at 22:10
I... what?
It's very depressing, but at least it's hilarious.
Say... I wonder if something like this would've happened in the '50s?
Nicker on 13/6/2010 at 22:14
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
It's a shame they don't publish religious texts.
Done.
CAUTION: This book is a product of its times and may contain information, accounts and opinions incompatible with known history, modern legal principles, scientific fact and common moral decency. Parents may want to discuss such matters as the stoning of disobedient children, the blood sacrifice of animals and humans, the ownership, trade and/or torture of humans, murder, rape, the commission of war crimes (including genocide and gross mistreatment of captives), threats of eternal torment, the marginalization of people due to their racial, religious, sexual or even national and civic identity, before allowing children to read this book. The publisher assumes no responsibility for any deleterious effects from the reading of this book, including but not limited to: mind-numbing anxiety, embarrassing public displays of fainting, glossolalia or egregious arm waving, the reduction of critical and rational capacity or the harassment of grieving persons.
Aerothorn on 14/6/2010 at 01:40
Quote Posted by Renzatic
On the other hand, you know some hippy type will read their constitutional history and eventually come across the 3/5ths compromise. You know he'll then start a bitch spree about how he can't support a country founded on racist ideals.
They make up 60% of the population of my college, as far as I can tell. I actually know someone who did a Senior Thesis entitled "Intolerable Acts Indeed," which, as far as I can tell, is about how all the founding fathers sucked because they were racist.
AR Master on 14/6/2010 at 03:55
Quote Posted by Nicker
hi im an enormous insufferable smug intolerable faggot.
here i corrected some spelling errors
