Jump to content

Yossarian

Banned
  • Content Count

    485
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

37 Excellent

About Yossarian

  • Rank
    Three-Star Recruit

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. So you did notice the "and" in the supremacy clause? We've made progress. As long as you continue to post on the taxpayers' dollar, we have not made progress. This is the end of this line of personal attacks. This kind of comment has zero to do with the topic. Let me make sure i have this right. carl calls me a liar and says I'm stupid...I complain about a public employee (carl) spending his time at work on the internet, and I get warned about personal attacks. I'm just trying to understand the boundaries here, but I believe I have it figured out.
  2. So you did notice the "and" in the supremacy clause? We've made progress. As long as you continue to post on the taxpayers' dollar, we have not made progress.
  3. I observed no personal attack thus far, you are baiting people into arguments just as much as they are alledgedly baiting you based on what you're trying to get across in your post above. The bat swings both ways here..................while the conversation is somewhat heated, it is NOT against board rules. It is a debate and with a debate during the debate someone might say "you said this" or "you meant this" a personal attack would be, "you are a moron and a waste of space." We are splitting hairs here........... Now, back to the subject....................They can try and make guns harder and harder to get by making background checks more in-depth, but that'll only keep the guns out of the law abiding citizens hands. Criminals are still going to get guns, there is nothing they can do to stop that and the sooner they realize that the better. Also, I hear the argument all the time, "I support people having hunting rifles, but not assault rifles like AK-47's or AR-15's." Is there really a difference? I can kill someone with a hunting rifle just as easily as I can with a assault rifle. It works vise versa too................I'm sure I could kill a deer with a AR-15 just as easily as I could with a 30-30. Just following your guidance. I have been kinda' alert to personal attacks ever since that poster called me a liar. I considered that "personal." Now, back to the subject....the argument is settled - the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting game. It's about arming people to kill other people.
  4. Did you miss this? "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme law of the land . . . " The emphasis is added but if you still don't want to believe it I can probably find an image of the Constitution itself containing those words. Could you show me where the Constitution says that the Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of a law? No . . . but SkersRule did. That part was directed towards his comments. Apologies for the confusion. Stop acting like you know nothing of U.S. history just to try and make a point. Then after you stop that, check out Marbury vs. Madison regarding judicial review. It was in all the papers.
  5. Specifically, how can you argue that the framers intended for the states to hold "the majority of power" when they specifically gave the federal government supreme authority? Actually, the supreme authority is the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights specifically limit the authority of the Federal Government. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme law of the land . . . " states < federal government. It's right there in black and white. No reading of the Federalist Papers will change it. If you don't like it you're welcome to amend it. (I think that you've made that argument. ) Actually, the Constitution trumps the laws of the land. There's an outfit called the "Supreme Court" that determines if the laws is permissible under the Constitution. For info on it, check this site...http://www.supremecourt.gov/ I said nothing about the Federalist Papers.
  6. There is some truth to what you say. The rights of the individual (in this case, the mentally ill) have taken precedence over the needs of society. Health care in this country has come to mean prescription drugs and turning those who need care out into the streets.
  7. Specifically, how can you argue that the framers intended for the states to hold "the majority of power" when they specifically gave the federal government supreme authority? Actually, the supreme authority is the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights specifically limit the authority of the Federal Government.
  8. Right, because that's what the hullabaloo is all about. It has nothing to do with the company donating millions of dollars to hate groups. What is a hate group? What kinds of things do hate groups do? In at least one case, I know of one that holds "kiss-ins" at popular restaurants and goes through the drive-up and belittles the young lady just trying to earn a living instead of going on the dole. The guy who did that works for a hate group, apparently. They fired him for supporting LGBTs with his own little unique hatred.
  9. Right, because that's what the hullabaloo is all about. It has nothing to do with the company donating millions of dollars to hate groups. So, that's the "bad" hate, right? Who cares what they do with their money. If you don't like it, don't line their pockets. All this is doing is generating a backlash against LGBT groups. And Chick-fil-A doesn't have a monopoly on hate. We saw a lot of it on the other side the past few days. When you drive up to the window and belittle the person working the window, that's the good hate, right? It's only bad when it gets your butt fired. Hate is hate. I don't see the point in trying to give it some arbitrary good-to-bad ranking. Unless you're trying to justify your own intolerance, then I could see how it could come in handy. Well, we have a winner! That's my point. Hate is hate, but in everyone's eyes, hate is either good or bad - nothing arbitrary about it. Everyone sees their own little hatreds for any and everything as okay...kinda' like your hatred of Chick-fil-A. That's good hatred as far as you're concerned because you're sticking up for a protected class. Chick-fil-A's President, however, doesn't see what he is doing as "hateful." And even if he did, he has his religion backing him up...he believes he's going to heaven because of it - not in spite of it. And your backhanded charge of intolerance runs off my back like water off a duck except for one case - unlike you, I am intolerant of intolerance.
  10. Right, because that's what the hullabaloo is all about. It has nothing to do with the company donating millions of dollars to hate groups. So, that's the "bad" hate, right? Who cares what they do with their money. If you don't like it, don't line their pockets. All this is doing is generating a backlash against LGBT groups. And Chick-fil-A doesn't have a monopoly on hate. We saw a lot of it on the other side the past few days. When you drive up to the window and belittle the person working the window, that's the good hate, right? It's only bad when it gets your butt fired.
  11. Now would be a good time to discuss what Islam does to people. Now there's some scary stuff. I'll start the ball rolling with "jihad." I realize that the Christians did the same sort of thing with the Crusades, but that was during the 11th, 12th, and 13th Centuries, but the Muslims continue jihad to this day. "Jizya" is another interesting concept - taxes paid solely by non-Muslims to a Muslim Government. They kill homosexuals and if you mock Mohammed (or draw his likeness) the Muslims will kill you too. Makes those Westboro Baptists nut-jobs seem moderate, doesn't it?
  12. Only if we take the marriage term away from multiracial couples and any man or woman who have been divorced. Then yes, it's "fair.". It's time to face the fact that, because of heterosexual people rushing to divorce to much there is no sanctity left in the term. No reason to hog it. This really has nothing to do with what we consider marriage as much as it does with the benefits or penalties granted//levied upon "married" couples by the Government - things like tax benefits or penalties or simply the rights a person has to see his/her "partner" in the hospital intensive care unit. Also, there are limits to having a spouse testify against their counterparts in court..or at least there used to be. As far as holy matrimony, that has become a quaint phrase these days. One of the original reasons for marriage, to provide a secure partnership (with the man working and the women staying home) for raising children, is no longer valid. Nowadays, both spouses work and they usually postpone having children. Meanwhile, the underclass has no need for marriage - the Government provides all the support they need and having more children means having more money. Having a man around will just decrease the money from Uncle Sam. It's the old adage: if you want something to increase, subsidize it. We are subsidizing children having children and marriage is not even considered.
×
×
  • Create New...