Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | Next >
Invisibleamp244
Sporocarp Stretching


Registered: 08/05/08
Posts: 1,336
Re: A vote for Hillary... [Re: Enlil]
    #23662619 - 09/20/16 06:29 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Yea maybe with the whole commerce argument, but the precedents have been set with a drivers license being an extension of your protected right to life liberty and property. Lots of cases, brobot. They can't take yo shit without due process, brohemian brove.


--------------------
How to Convert a Normal 24-hour Light Timer into a Short Cycle Repeating Timer


"Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,518
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: A vote for Hillary... [Re: starfire_xes]
    #23662630 - 09/20/16 06:31 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

That law would be invalid under the Privileges and Immunitites Clause.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCrumist
Stranger
I'm a teapot User Gallery

Registered: 11/02/13
Posts: 781
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: A vote for Hillary... [Re: Enlil]
    #23663505 - 09/20/16 10:38 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

Crumist said:Amp, what is your position on required auto or home insurance?



You're kinda muddying the waters here.  I'm pretty sure Amp isn't saying that government lacks the power...just that the FEDERAL government lacks the power.  I think we all agree that state governments can make everyone wear green if they want.


Good point. though each state has its respective constitutions and precedent has extended federal power to enforce the US Constitution in seemingly intrastate matters[/tangent]

amp, I hope you don't mind if I go back to the conversation from a few pages ago: What is your argument that the money uninsured persons pay the gov't is something other than a tax? There is no individual mandate and no one is required to buy insurance. If you find Social Security or Disability constitutional, how is this any different?


--------------------
'I am all for resources being allocated to the widowed single mother of 3, lost husband over seas fighting for our country. I am for vets getting mental health access and resources following war. I am not for free money cause a woman can't close her legs or some chump with low testosterone no going to work cause "i'm sad."' -finalexplosion
Nice knowin ya'll! https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23904704/vc/1#23904704


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: A vote for Hillary... [Re: amp244]
    #23663616 - 09/20/16 11:13 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

amp244 said:
Quote:

Enlil said:
We can debate whether that decision was the right one or not, but I think we probably both agree that it was not.



Thank you. This is what I was arguing. I appreciate you making the process this painstaking. The decision was wrong, and under strict interpretation, the law is unconstitutional. Thanks bra. We just had a breakthrough.



I'm pretty sure Enlil didn't argue it was unconstitutional; just that he has a different opinion about what is right.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,518
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: A vote for Hillary... [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #23663626 - 09/20/16 11:13 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Exactly.  It's constitutional because the Supremes say it's constitutional.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleamp244
Sporocarp Stretching


Registered: 08/05/08
Posts: 1,336
Re: A vote for Hillary... [Re: Enlil]
    #23663781 - 09/21/16 12:06 AM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Exactly.  It's constitutional because the Supremes say it's constitutional.



Exactly. 4 judges thought it was unconstitutional. 5 thought it was constitutional. We both agree that they got it wrong, but hey, its law, and that's the way that it is.

I could go back and count how many times you've made this point, but I'll just throw out a guess of 12 times...


--------------------
How to Convert a Normal 24-hour Light Timer into a Short Cycle Repeating Timer


"Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: A vote for Hillary... [Re: amp244]
    #23663840 - 09/21/16 12:28 AM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

amp244 said:
Quote:

Enlil said:
Exactly.  It's constitutional because the Supremes say it's constitutional.



Exactly. 4 judges thought it was unconstitutional. 5 thought it was constitutional. We both agree that they got it wrong, but hey, its law, and that's the way that it is.



Hey, now you get it!!!  :cookiemonster:

Quote:

amp244 said:
I could go back and count how many times you've made this point, but I'll just throw out a guess of 12 times...



But you've disagreed about the constitutionality of this until now.  Do you finally get it?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleamp244
Sporocarp Stretching


Registered: 08/05/08
Posts: 1,336
Re: A vote for Hillary... [Re: amp244] * 1
    #23663843 - 09/21/16 12:29 AM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Falcon please be quiet. Nobody was talking to you. I have told Enlil maybe 4 times that I agreed with his point about the SCOTUS opinion. Please stop making a mockery of these forums.

I am arguing that it conflicts with the constitution. That the correct interpretation is that it is unconstitutional. I do however recognize the fact that 5 of 9 SCOTUS justices have rendered an opinion that it is constitutional. That doesnt deny anyone else from challenging it, it just means that the current standing opinion, is that it is constitutional. I've never denied that.

You jump in and meddle in the argument and befuddle the fuck out of everything. Your 2nd quote and comment illustrates just how easily confused you are. Please Stop making a mockery of these forums.


--------------------
How to Convert a Normal 24-hour Light Timer into a Short Cycle Repeating Timer


"Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith


Edited by amp244 (09/21/16 12:39 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: A vote for Hillary... [Re: amp244]
    #23663938 - 09/21/16 01:21 AM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

amp244 said:
Falcon please be quiet. Nobody was talking to you.



You are posting in a public forum.  If you want a discussion with Enlil only, you should send him a private message.  :crazy2:

Quote:

amp244 said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
But you've disagreed about the constitutionality of this until now.  Do you finally get it?



I have told Enlil maybe 4 times that I agreed with his point about the SCOTUS opinion. Please stop making a mockery of these forums.



You just said "...the law is unconstitutional", so you clearly don't get it.  YOU aren't the one whose opinion determines the constitutionality of something for the country.  :facepalm3:

Quote:

amp244 said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
But you've disagreed about the constitutionality of this until now.  Do you finally get it?



Your second quote and comment speaks to how easily confused you are. I am arguing that it conflicts with the constitution. That the correct interpretation is that it is unconstitutional. I do however recognize the fact that 5 of 9 SCOTUS justices have rendered an opinion that it is constitutional.



And we all get that is your opinion.  The point is that the constitution is open to different interpretations, and the only "correct" ones are those made by the Supreme Court.  You don't seem to understand that there are other "correct" interpretations besides your own.

Enlil is owning you in this thread.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,518
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: A vote for Hillary... [Re: amp244]
    #23664231 - 09/21/16 06:45 AM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Amp, you've been saying that the law is unconstitutional for pages in this thread.  That is simply incorrect.  Under the Constitution, there is a mechanism for interpreting the Constitution.  That method is the SCOTUS.  Using that method, the ACA was determined to be Constitutional.  That's a settled debate, and there really is nothing to argue there. 

Even if the Court got it wrong (which I think they did, but probably not for the same reason you do), or they later overturn the decision (which won't happen for decades, if ever) that won't change the fact that the law, TODAY, is Constitutional.

Since the law is Constitutional today, it really is pointless to debate ACA based on a theory that it SHOULDN'T be constitutional.  If you want to debate the merits of the law, I'm all for it.  If you want to debate the politicization of the SCOTUS and the way that they've become a de facto legislative branch, that's fine, too.  If it's going to be the latter, however, talking about the ACA is kinda silly since we have so many far more egregious examples of the SCOTUS overstepping their bounds.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePeteyboy
SpaceWalker
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/21/16
Posts: 2,848
Loc: Trumperica!
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: A vote for Hillary... [Re: Enlil]
    #23664324 - 09/21/16 07:56 AM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Enlil-I must say I gained some respect for you after that post. It clarified things for me as far as how you feel regarding the situation being discussed. Now I understand where your coming from a little better.

I think the main issue here is as you said that the SCOTUS has been politicized into the legislative branch. And because of this there have been unconstitutional programs deemed constitutional and therefore deployed on the American people. Again you are correct in the fact there are many many examples of the SCOTUS overstepping their bounds, it's just that the ACA is a very expensive overstepping to say the least, and one of the most recent examples.


--------------------


*TRADE LIST* https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23855008 *TRADE LIST*




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,518
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: A vote for Hillary... [Re: Peteyboy]
    #23664487 - 09/21/16 09:28 AM (7 years, 4 months ago)

That's a discussion for another thread.  The ACA discussion is off topic enough.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePeteyboy
SpaceWalker
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/21/16
Posts: 2,848
Loc: Trumperica!
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: A vote for Hillary... [Re: Enlil]
    #23664571 - 09/21/16 10:08 AM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Agreed


--------------------


*TRADE LIST* https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23855008 *TRADE LIST*




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,876
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: A vote for Hillary... [Re: amp244]
    #23664709 - 09/21/16 11:04 AM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

amp244 said:

Also a side note to Ballsista who keeps chiming in from the peanut gallery and co-signing to all of your B.S.: Why do you think Roberts says Section 5000A would be unconstitutional if read as a command? Because that would be an infringement on one's life, liberty, and property, which are protected by what? The due process clause of the 5th amendment. You see, through due process, the government can fine you, search you, imprison you, confiscate your property, take your children from you, murder you, and a lot more. That's why U.S. citizens are afforded due process, to confront their accusers and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That's why they have traffic court. Because people have a right to confront their accusers in court. The police officer has to show up and testify against you, you make your case, and the judge decides if the facts are sufficient to find you guilty, as you are presumed innocent.





you clearly are not picking up what i'm putting down.  Let's grant for a moment your due process argument.  Under strict scrutiny doctrine, a law that violates due process could still be found to be constitutional if it serves a compelling government interest, is narrowly tailored, and is the least restrictive means that is likely to be effective.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny
Quote:

Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws.  To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest.  A famous quip asserts that strict scrutiny is "strict in name, but fatal in practice." Accordingly, there exists a concern that an exceedingly rigid application of strict scrutiny will categorically invalidate legislation, while allowing courts to forego a true evaluation of a given laws purpose and value.

For a court to apply strict scrutiny, the legislature must either have significantly abridged a fundamental right with the law's enactment or have passed a law that involves a suspect classification.




Quote:

amp244 said:
Quote:

Enlil said:
By your logic, you do have a choice.  If you don't have income above the filing threshold, you don't need to buy insurance or pay the tax.



Yes but trying to obtain a high income is consistent with my natural right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and property homie. Thats why cops can't take your license without due process homie. Cause your ability to drive effects your ability to obtain gainful employment which is a natural right of yours based on your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.




refuse a breathalyzer in the state of Ca and see what happens to your drivers license. (hint: the DMV will revoke it for 12 months, regardless of whether or not you are found guilty in court)


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Edited by ballsalsa (09/21/16 11:54 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleamp244
Sporocarp Stretching


Registered: 08/05/08
Posts: 1,336
Re: A vote for Hillary... [Re: Enlil]
    #23664783 - 09/21/16 11:37 AM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Amp, you've been saying that the law is unconstitutional for pages in this thread.  That is simply incorrect.  Under the Constitution, there is a mechanism for interpreting the Constitution.  That method is the SCOTUS.  Using that method, the ACA was determined to be Constitutional.  That's a settled debate, and there really is nothing to argue there. 

Even if the Court got it wrong (which I think they did, but probably not for the same reason you do), or they later overturn the decision (which won't happen for decades, if ever) that won't change the fact that the law, TODAY, is Constitutional.

Since the law is Constitutional today, it really is pointless to debate ACA based on a theory that it SHOULDN'T be constitutional.  If you want to debate the merits of the law, I'm all for it.  If you want to debate the politicization of the SCOTUS and the way that they've become a de facto legislative branch, that's fine, too.  If it's going to be the latter, however, talking about the ACA is kinda silly since we have so many far more egregious examples of the SCOTUS overstepping their bounds.



The SCOTUS can change its opinion. Its not "pointless" to point out that its decision is wrong. That's one of the functions of the Judicial branch Enlil. They interpret laws and can declare them unconstitutional, regardless of how many times they have been declared constitutional. For a supposed attorney, you certainly love to put yourself in a box. But thats not all, you know about that Jury homie. Citizens sitting on a Jury, can still interpret the law, regardless of SCOTUS opinion, to be unconstitutional and therefore void. I am arguing on a public forum where many potential jurors may visit. This argument is very relevant, notwithstanding the extreme ridicule and lambasting of the opponents of freedom (that's you Enlil!)

And you are still, continuing to say the same shit over and over again. I know about the SCOTUS. I know that its interpretations are law. I know that "officially" the law is considered constitutional until challenged again. I know that. I've known that. I've never said otherwise. Never.

I contend that it is wrong. I've contended that the entire time. I've provided an argument and support. I've noted the dissenting opinion and lots of other things. You agree that the decision was wrong, and then continue to restate the SCOTUS point, as if I denied that point.

So every time you tell me that the SCOTUS decision is the law, you aren't telling me anything I don't already know. That I haven't known this entire time. I know the law was interpreted as being constitutional I think the law is unconstitutional. If you tell me my opinion is irrelevant, than this entire forum is irrelevant. None of anything you, I, and especially Falcon, say has any semblance of relevance under this assumption.


So I've addressed every one of your points:

Your 1st paragraph - You reiterating your point and making the misconception that because I THINK the law is unconstitutional, I think the SCOTUS opinion holds no legal weight. Those are two completely different assertions of course, but you are a professional sophist.

2nd Paragraph - You point out it is LAW TODAY! Yes and every juror TODAY, has the ability to judge the constitutionality of that law, regardless of SCOTUS opinion.

3rd Paragraph
You pretending you have some esoteric knowledge and asserting "truths" about the importance of certain laws. I think the ACA is a very important law to reign in as it is disastrous to individuals' economic prosperity and self-reliance.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,518
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: A vote for Hillary... [Re: amp244]
    #23664892 - 09/21/16 12:17 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

amp244 said:
But thats not all, you know about that Jury homie.




Which jury is that?  The one that won't ever be empaneled in the lawsuit that won't be filed when the IRS just takes the money from your bank account? 

Or are you talking about the jury in your tax evasion case that won't ever hear any testimony or argument about the Constitutionality of the ACA?

Which jury, precisely, do you think is going to nullify?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleamp244
Sporocarp Stretching


Registered: 08/05/08
Posts: 1,336
Re: A vote for Hillary... [Re: ballsalsa]
    #23664902 - 09/21/16 12:19 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Quote:

ballsalsa said:
Quote:

amp244 said:

Also a side note to Ballsista who keeps chiming in from the peanut gallery and co-signing to all of your B.S.: Why do you think Roberts says Section 5000A would be unconstitutional if read as a command? Because that would be an infringement on one's life, liberty, and property, which are protected by what? The due process clause of the 5th amendment. You see, through due process, the government can fine you, search you, imprison you, confiscate your property, take your children from you, murder you, and a lot more. That's why U.S. citizens are afforded due process, to confront their accusers and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That's why they have traffic court. Because people have a right to confront their accusers in court. The police officer has to show up and testify against you, you make your case, and the judge decides if the facts are sufficient to find you guilty, as you are presumed innocent.





you clearly are not picking up what i'm putting down.  Let's grant for a moment your due process argument.  Under strict scrutiny doctrine, a law that violates due process could still be found to be constitutional if it serves a compelling government interest, is narrowly tailored, and is the least restrictive means that is likely to be effective.




Well let me see if I'm digging what you're laying down...So are you arguing that Obamacare fits those qualifications? Narrowly tailored? Least restrictive means? Government interest or Special interests? The government can't penalize you without due process. They can tax their asses off. They can't fine people without due process.

Quote:

amp244 said:
Quote:

Enlil said:
By your logic, you do have a choice.  If you don't have income above the filing threshold, you don't need to buy insurance or pay the tax.



Yes but trying to obtain a high income is consistent with my natural right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and property homie. Thats why cops can't take your license without due process homie. Cause your ability to drive effects your ability to obtain gainful employment which is a natural right of yours based on your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.




refuse a breathalyzer in the state of Ca and see what happens to your drivers license. (hint: the DMV will revoke it



My buddy did. He got his license back because there is a process necessary that was not conducted correctly. You have to first be placed under arrest before they ADMINISTER THE TEST. The test (Breathalizer, blood, field sobriety, etc.) serves as the due process. One can argue the legitimacy of that, but that is why they are allowed to take the license. Because according to them, they have provided you due process.

The cops had come to my buddies house trying to serve an arrest warrant for a person who was thought to be at the residence. He was not. The police asked to search the premises, as an officer with an at-15 variant was creeping in the back yard. The owner told them that they could not search without a warrant and that when they came back with one, they would be video taped. The left but returned when the owner was not home. His stepson was home, however. The cops tried to search once more. The stepson told them they could not search without a warrant. They said they had one, and presented the ARREST warrant for the subject. This is technically attempted breaking and entering, as they lied in an attempt to gain unlawful entry to the premises. The stepson read the warrant and denied them entry and they left seemingly upset.

The next day, the stepson was driving to work (he works 50 miles away in Kern County, he lives in Inyo County) An inyo county sheriff followed him over 10 miles into Kern county (this officer, deputy sparks, used to work with the Kern county police department, but was relieved) and radio ahead to kern county that he was following a felony arrest warrant (The subject was 5'6", the step son is 6'5") despite the fact that Sparks was one of the officers who had been at the premises the day before. The license plates would come back a different name than the suspect and the car could only have been recognized if it had been profiled from the driveway the day before. Next thing you know Kern county boys are behind him.


They lit him up but he didn't pull over for about 2 miles while he was following traffic signals and signs until he got to his job. He is one of those paranoid "the cops are killing everyone" people who I have to shake my head at. Either way, they draw their guns, pull him out, go through this whole line of questioning but he was never placed under arrest. He took a breathalyzer and blew a 0.00. Then the cop said she thought he was high so they went to give him a blood test. He refused for whatever reason. He didn't have a valid license and they arrested him and took him to jail for evading, driving on suspended, and DWI or the equivalent(I'm not exactly sure). They never served him notice of his license being suspended, when he got out of jail there was no documentation alerting him of such. 3 days later, he went to the CA DMV, took his test, got his license and even received it in the mail a week later.

About 10 days after this he is at work at the Mobile mart. He is driving HIS MOTHERS CAR. A police officer is waiting for over an hour outside of the mobile(we have all the police reports). In the report, the officer said he knew that the kid had a suspended license because he ran it while he was working.(it takes 10 days for the suspension to go through, so the DMV issued him a license, and then took it away two days later) But the car was not his, so this man had to have had the stepson's license number to have run it. He was harassing the kid, going out of his way to stick it to him. Instead of preventing a crime he had reason to believe was going to happen, he waited for over an hour to allow the crime to take place. He lit the step son up, the step son continued to drive to his house, the cops get out with their guns, the stepson's parents come out of the house with video cameras and an intense shouting match breaks out. The whole shit is on tape. Dudes pull out "less-than-lethal" shotguns and all types of Rambo shit. I should see if they uploaded the video or not.

He wrote letters all the way up the chain of command at the police offices, and courthouse, and one to the DMV. The DMV instantly reinstated his license. The Kern courthouse has yet to officially file charges, they are still trying to negotiate a plea, all they have is driving on suspended. Inyo dropped everything after he made a $200 donation to a charity of his choice, which is still B.S.


--------------------
How to Convert a Normal 24-hour Light Timer into a Short Cycle Repeating Timer


"Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
Re: A vote for Hillary... [Re: amp244]
    #23664924 - 09/21/16 12:29 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Your opinion is relevant, but to say that your opinion is "correct" and that other people's opinions (including that of the Supreme Court) are wrong, is what is being argued against.

YOU are not the decision maker for the country.  Decisions that go to the Supreme Court are not black and white (if they were, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court).

THAT'S the point you don't get.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleamp244
Sporocarp Stretching


Registered: 08/05/08
Posts: 1,336
Re: A vote for Hillary... [Re: amp244]
    #23664930 - 09/21/16 12:33 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

amp244 said:
But thats not all, you know about that Jury homie.




Which jury is that?  The one that won't ever be empaneled in the lawsuit that won't be filed when the IRS just takes the money from your bank account? 

Or are you talking about the jury in your tax evasion case that won't ever hear any testimony or argument about the Constitutionality of the ACA?

Which jury, precisely, do you think is going to nullify?



So if a lawsuit was filed, which jurisdiction would it be under? Would both parties not be entitled to a federal jury? Would not the constitutionality of the law that gave rise to the penalty not be an issue concerning the legitimacy of the penalty?

I am curious, because I haven't done that research.


--------------------
How to Convert a Normal 24-hour Light Timer into a Short Cycle Repeating Timer


"Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith


Edited by amp244 (09/21/16 12:34 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleamp244
Sporocarp Stretching


Registered: 08/05/08
Posts: 1,336
Re: A vote for Hillary... [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #23664935 - 09/21/16 12:35 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Your opinion is relevant, but to say that your opinion is "correct" and that other people's opinions (including that of the Supreme Court) are wrong, is what is being argued against.

YOU are not the decision maker for the country.  Decisions that go to the Supreme Court are not black and white (if they were, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court).

THAT'S the point you don't get.



Falcon, 'tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.


--------------------
How to Convert a Normal 24-hour Light Timer into a Short Cycle Repeating Timer


"Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | Next >

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Poll: Obama, Hillary Beat GOP in '08 lonestar2004 1,252 4 07/21/07 08:50 PM
by xFrockx
* The stupidity of voting for Hillary.
( 1 2 3 all )
shroomydan 3,591 55 09/20/07 04:10 PM
by BrAiN
* Meet the Next President: Hillary Clinton remains coy about run lonestar2004 662 0 09/22/06 09:07 AM
by lonestar2004
* Hillary Clinton
( 1 2 3 all )
trebbihm 3,424 42 02/12/07 05:55 PM
by Redstorm
* Why It Is Time To Decriminalize Drug Use RonoS 2,053 19 10/02/02 04:12 PM
by LSAuser
* what's wrong with hillary clinton?
( 1 2 3 all )
Bridgeburner 3,869 43 10/16/07 03:06 PM
by sander
* Hillary 2008 Already in Gear
( 1 2 all )
ekomstop 3,845 30 11/04/04 01:36 PM
by Innvertigo
* The wind at Hillary's back.
( 1 2 all )
lonestar2004 3,549 25 09/13/05 05:05 PM
by krishnamurti

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
12,539 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.