Dumbest thing anyone has ever said?

[Michchamp]

"If babies had guns, they wouldn't be aborted."

If that isn't the dumbest statement in the history of mankind, it's gotta be close.

He's obviously trying to push people's buttons, but the idea fails for so many different reasons... you can still take it at face value, because it's an equally stupid way to appeal to voters.

 

[Mitchrapp]

That doesn't mean anything, its a joke. You laugh and then move on..

 

[JScottWriter]

He is from TX, he will get re-elected no matter what he said or did.

 

[turok]

Babies aren't really considered babies until after @ least several months after birth. They are infants when born, and fetuses while still within the womb

They wouldn't be aborted by factors outside of the womb, but a fetus with a "gun" is a dead fetus, nonetheless.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Babies aren't really considered babies until after @ least several months after birth. They are infants when born, and fetuses while still within the womb

They wouldn't be aborted by factors outside of the womb, but a fetus with a "gun" is a dead fetus, nonetheless.

Is that where the phrase "from my cold dead embilical chord" comes from?

 

[Michchamp]

Babies aren't really considered babies until after @ least several months after birth. They are infants when born, and fetuses while still within the womb

They wouldn't be aborted by factors outside of the womb, but a fetus with a "gun" is a dead fetus, nonetheless.

yeah, how would that even work? dumbest thing anyone has ever said.

 

[Thumb]

The dumb part is he's suggesting that guns are a solution to a problem, which is what truly makes him and any morons who vote for him such idiots.

 

[Michchamp]

The dumb part is he's suggesting that guns are a solution to a problem, which is what truly makes him and any morons who vote for him such idiots.

would be fun to watch this guy "debate" his opponents.

his slogan is basically throwing down the gauntlet: "We are FFFFing stupid, and we don't care. FFFF You. Wanna fight?"

If I were debating him, I'd call his bluff and ask him how he proposes to 1.) get a gun inside the womb, and 2.) how would a fetus operate a gun if its early in the pregnancy and they have not yet developed opposable thumbs. We'd keep coming back to this unless we could get out of him that he believes the voting constituents are stupid enough to believe this is a workable solution, at which point we'd move on.

also, I'd beef up my security during the campaign, and put shatter proof windows on all my campaign offices. yikes!

 

[TheVictors]

Also, what sort of Photo ID would a fetus be able to provide at a Texas Walmart when seeking to purchase his/her semi-automatic womb weapon!?

 

[Michchamp]

Also, what sort of Photo ID would a fetus be able to provide at a Texas Walmart when seeking to purchase his/her semi-automatic womb weapon!?

Well, I actually don't think that would be a good counter argument. why should it need one?

says right there in the constitution... "something something, bla bla bla... right to bear arms should not be infringed."

I give you cash, and you give me whateva I WANT. grenades, land mines, M60s, Abrams tanks. My money's good. I got a tyranny to oppose. Showing ID is TOO BURDENSOME.

 

[byco42]

Someone said something controversial? That NEVER happens anymore.

 

[tinselwolverine]

"Wait 'til this doctor sees what I have up my sleeve for HIM!!!"

 

[Michchamp]

Someone said something controversial? That NEVER happens anymore.

a proposal to arm human fetuses is merely controversial in your book?

>

 

[redandguilty]

The dumb part is he's suggesting that guns are a solution to a problem, which is what truly makes him and any morons who vote for him such idiots.

I can't tell who is poking fun at the argument and who actually thinks he was being literal. Is this post supposed to be a joke? I don't see it. Sounds like a response to a literal interpretation. He's obviously not being literal. To suggest that he's suggesting that guns are a part of the solution, you'd have to take what he said as a literal suggestion. No way he meant it literally. It's a take on the old "the unborn can't vote" idea.

 

[byco42]

a proposal to arm human fetuses is merely controversial in your book?

>

It actually barely qualifies.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I can't tell who is poking fun at the argument and who actually thinks he was being literal...

You can't tell about me?

Seriously?

 

[redandguilty]

You can't tell about me?

Seriously?

OK...I can't tell in some cases.

I found something dumber anyway. RCMB.

Dude #1 says Mich has been beating MSU in recruiting in the years prior to MSU's hot streak and Dantonio is greater than Hoke which matters more than any recruiting ranking.

Dude #2 says the following:

Two things....

1. Hoke is not RichRod. Now I don't think he is a nationally elite coach, but he is a million times better than RichRod.

2. Hoke is recruiting at a higher level than they are used to recently. The last few years of Carr and the RichRod years were pretty shitty for them in terms of recruiting.

Now we still have Coach D and we are not going anywhere. I just think people are kidding themselves if they look at the RichRod years and try to draw any relevant conclusions as it relates to Hoke.

Dude #3 fires back with this:

Item #2 is just flat wrong. RichRod has very highly ranked recruiting classes, usually Top 10. They never panned out, his selections were crap, but they were RANKED Highly by the recruiting services. The conversation for this thread is, recruiting rankings and getting high-stars players. Not quality players. High-stars players. Not always one and the same.

That's one of the worst arguments I think I've ever read.

Dude #1: stars don't matter
Dude #2: Hoke has out-recruited RR
Dude #3: no, RR's recruits were ranked too high, RR's stars = Hoke's stars

 

[Thumb]

I can't tell who is poking fun at the argument and who actually thinks he was being literal. Is this post supposed to be a joke? I don't see it. Sounds like a response to a literal interpretation. He's obviously not being literal. To suggest that he's suggesting that guns are a part of the solution, you'd have to take what he said as a literal suggestion. No way he meant it literally. It's a take on the old "the unborn can't vote" idea.

No I don't take what he's saying literally. But I believe he is suggesting that guns could be a solution to problems, he's saying it tongue-in-cheek, but his overall message is clear: Guns = good; Abortions = bad.

 

[byco42]

Abortions are bad. Guns are neither good nor bad. They are objects. Sadly, unborn human beings are treated like objects too.

 

[redandguilty]

No I don't take what he's saying literally. But I believe he is suggesting that guns could be a solution to problems, he's saying it tongue-in-cheek, but his overall message is clear: Guns = good; Abortions = bad.

Oh. You didn't say the dumb part was suggesting gun were a solution to this problem, you said a problem, meaning guns can't be used to solve anything. Well that's a different take.


We assign a lot of guns to publicly employed people. Our institutions have used guns to solve problems every step of the way. Pacifists disagree and are quite noble in their disagreement, but non-pacifism is not a remotely novel idea.

I guess I'm just not clear on what makes this the dumbest thing ever. The idea that the unborn don't have have any say in the matter isn't new, or wrong, and using an example of violence instead of voting to stick up for yourself, while ugly, doesn't invalidate the point. It's not a point that persuades anyone; it's just rhetoric, and people will still disagree as to whether or not a fetus deserves that type of consideration, but it's not flawed like the RCMB argument.