Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Amendments to the US Constitution
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1606
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cokey wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
cokey wrote:
A constitution should be about inalienable rights not guns and alcohol. It should be about free speech, freedom of religion, right to congregate etc. It becomes worthless when you put worthless things in it. If you can argue it then it shouldn't be in there.

By your logic, since your countrymen fought three bloody civil wars to establish the constitutional right of the people to withhold consent to the monarch's rule (civil wars which, I think we can all agree, more than qualify as "arguing"), your so-called Constitution is completely invalid. Again, by your logic.
We don't have a constitution, so my logic is impeccable

I never said you did, and your logic is shit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
cokey wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
cokey wrote:
A constitution should be about inalienable rights not guns and alcohol. It should be about free speech, freedom of religion, right to congregate etc. It becomes worthless when you put worthless things in it. If you can argue it then it shouldn't be in there.

By your logic, since your countrymen fought three bloody civil wars to establish the constitutional right of the people to withhold consent to the monarch's rule (civil wars which, I think we can all agree, more than qualify as "arguing"), your so-called Constitution is completely invalid. Again, by your logic.
We don't have a constitution, so my logic is impeccable

I never said you did, and your logic is shit.
Quote:
your so-called Constitution
Would you like to revise your comment? Or is your comprehension as bad as your logic.
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 240
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Old School wrote:
George Washington's Inaugural was a Deep State ceremony.
FTFY :P
:lol:
_________________
The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell

It just keeps getting better
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 240
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cokey wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
cokey wrote:
A constitution should be about inalienable rights not guns and alcohol. It should be about free speech, freedom of religion, right to congregate etc. It becomes worthless when you put worthless things in it. If you can argue it then it shouldn't be in there.

By your logic, since your countrymen fought three bloody civil wars to establish the constitutional right of the people to withhold consent to the monarch's rule (civil wars which, I think we can all agree, more than qualify as "arguing"), your so-called Constitution is completely invalid. Again, by your logic.
We don't have a constitution
That is your problem. It is too easy for the politicians and the people than own them to change the rules in the middle of the game without a constitution. Here in the US politicians of most stripes ignore the Constitution, so they try to change the rules in the middle of the game. That has become the trademark of the American leftist.
_________________
The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell

It just keeps getting better
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1606
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cokey wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
cokey wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
cokey wrote:
A constitution should be about inalienable rights not guns and alcohol. It should be about free speech, freedom of religion, right to congregate etc. It becomes worthless when you put worthless things in it. If you can argue it then it shouldn't be in there.

By your logic, since your countrymen fought three bloody civil wars to establish the constitutional right of the people to withhold consent to the monarch's rule (civil wars which, I think we can all agree, more than qualify as "arguing"), your so-called Constitution is completely invalid. Again, by your logic.
We don't have a constitution, so my logic is impeccable

I never said you did, and your logic is shit.
Quote:
your so-called Constitution
Would you like to revise your comment? Or is your comprehension as bad as your logic.

You are excruciatingly confused. Last time we discussed this, you argued vehemently that you DO have a constitution, it's just not a single document like ours: that it's made up of a mixture of various documents, legal precedents, etc. Now you're saying you DON'T have a constitution? I hate to burst your wobbly bubble of blissful ignorance, but you can't have "constitutional" rights and be a "constitutional monarchy" without a constitution. So which is it? Do you have a constitution, or don't you?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 763
Location: EU

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wswartzendruber wrote:

Subsidize me? Show me the evidence that taxpayers from leftist states subsidize smaller, conservative states.

As far as fruits and vegetables go, we do business with them. They are free to renegotiate contracts as they see fit. We don't have to buy them, however.


isn't the farming industry the biggest recipient of government handouts? And where is idaho on that?

repeal the second. double down on the first.

interesting about the 17th. populism does suck. the trouble is that you might get powerless or corrupt houses like Canada and the UK. The Lords should be done away with.
_________________
wswartzendruber wrote:
Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: Idaho, USA

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
isn't the farming industry the biggest recipient of government handouts? And where is idaho on that?

Nowhere as close to the recipient California is. Of course, I wonder what farmers have to say about subsidies.

juniper wrote:
repeal the second. double down on the first.

Yeah, I'm really not seeing the whole problem with the 2nd Amendment. What I do see, however, are stupid policy makers at every level of administration who are so deranged...they actually think a sign that says "Gun Free" will keep criminals with guns away instead of attracting them.

But maybe Idaho needs to start regulating knives more heavily because we did actually have a murder happen recently:

Idaho woman arrested for murder with “sadistic inclinations”
_________________
Gun: Glock 19 Gen 4
Sights: XS DXT Big Dot
Holster: StealthGear VentCore IWB
Ammunition: Federal Premium HST 124gr
Light: Inforce APLc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

wswartzendruber wrote:
juniper wrote:
isn't the farming industry the biggest recipient of government handouts? And where is idaho on that?

Nowhere as close to the recipient California is. Of course, I wonder what farmers have to say about subsidies.

Idaho gets more agriculture subsidies per acre of farmland than California.
https://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2011/10/20/us-agricultural-commodity-subsidies-by-state-2010-new-graphic/

i have a feeling that what any particular farmer thinks about subsidies depends on how much subsidies he or she gets.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1606
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
wswartzendruber wrote:
juniper wrote:
isn't the farming industry the biggest recipient of government handouts? And where is idaho on that?

Nowhere as close to the recipient California is. Of course, I wonder what farmers have to say about subsidies.

Idaho gets more agriculture subsidies per acre of farmland than California.
https://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2011/10/20/us-agricultural-commodity-subsidies-by-state-2010-new-graphic/

i have a feeling that what any particular farmer thinks about subsidies depends on how much subsidies he or she gets.

Why do you always produce these caveated, slanted statistics? Why would you compare subsidies on a "per acre" basis? Does each acre get one vote, or pay the same amount of taxes or something? Do you really think an acre of grass or potatoes is worth the same as an acre of garlic or almonds? Why do you pull this crap? I know you're smart enough not to be falling for it yourself, so what's the story?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: Idaho, USA

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks like he caved on the 2nd Amendment.
_________________
Gun: Glock 19 Gen 4
Sights: XS DXT Big Dot
Holster: StealthGear VentCore IWB
Ammunition: Federal Premium HST 124gr
Light: Inforce APLc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
richk449 wrote:
wswartzendruber wrote:
juniper wrote:
isn't the farming industry the biggest recipient of government handouts? And where is idaho on that?

Nowhere as close to the recipient California is. Of course, I wonder what farmers have to say about subsidies.

Idaho gets more agriculture subsidies per acre of farmland than California.
https://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2011/10/20/us-agricultural-commodity-subsidies-by-state-2010-new-graphic/

i have a feeling that what any particular farmer thinks about subsidies depends on how much subsidies he or she gets.

Why do you always produce these caveated, slanted statistics? Why would you compare subsidies on a "per acre" basis? Does each acre get one vote, or pay the same amount of taxes or something? Do you really think an acre of grass or potatoes is worth the same as an acre of garlic or almonds? Why do you pull this crap? I know you're smart enough not to be falling for it yourself, so what's the story?

On what basis do you suggest that subsidies be compared? If you compared per capita, or per GDP, Idaho would look like an even bigger beneficiary. Comparing raw dollars to each state is meaningless, since states are different sizes, and have different amounts of farms.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
cokey wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
cokey wrote:
A constitution should be about inalienable rights not guns and alcohol. It should be about free speech, freedom of religion, right to congregate etc. It becomes worthless when you put worthless things in it. If you can argue it then it shouldn't be in there.

By your logic, since your countrymen fought three bloody civil wars to establish the constitutional right of the people to withhold consent to the monarch's rule (civil wars which, I think we can all agree, more than qualify as "arguing"), your so-called Constitution is completely invalid. Again, by your logic.
We don't have a constitution
That is your problem. It is too easy for the politicians and the people than own them to change the rules in the middle of the game without a constitution. Here in the US politicians of most stripes ignore the Constitution, so they try to change the rules in the middle of the game. That has become the trademark of the American leftist.
Laws are laws, they don't need a constitution
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
cokey wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
cokey wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
cokey wrote:
A constitution should be about inalienable rights not guns and alcohol. It should be about free speech, freedom of religion, right to congregate etc. It becomes worthless when you put worthless things in it. If you can argue it then it shouldn't be in there.

By your logic, since your countrymen fought three bloody civil wars to establish the constitutional right of the people to withhold consent to the monarch's rule (civil wars which, I think we can all agree, more than qualify as "arguing"), your so-called Constitution is completely invalid. Again, by your logic.
We don't have a constitution, so my logic is impeccable

I never said you did, and your logic is shit.
Quote:
your so-called Constitution
Would you like to revise your comment? Or is your comprehension as bad as your logic.

You are excruciatingly confused. Last time we discussed this, you argued vehemently that you DO have a constitution, it's just not a single document like ours: that it's made up of a mixture of various documents, legal precedents, etc. Now you're saying you DON'T have a constitution? I hate to burst your wobbly bubble of blissful ignorance, but you can't have "constitutional" rights and be a "constitutional monarchy" without a constitution. So which is it? Do you have a constitution, or don't you?
Awwwwww, poor bubba. Let me wipe that tear fwom your eye. It just shows I can beat you from both sides of an argument :wink:
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5442
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cokey wrote:
Old School wrote:
cokey wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
cokey wrote:
A constitution should be about inalienable rights not guns and alcohol. It should be about free speech, freedom of religion, right to congregate etc. It becomes worthless when you put worthless things in it. If you can argue it then it shouldn't be in there.

By your logic, since your countrymen fought three bloody civil wars to establish the constitutional right of the people to withhold consent to the monarch's rule (civil wars which, I think we can all agree, more than qualify as "arguing"), your so-called Constitution is completely invalid. Again, by your logic.
We don't have a constitution
That is your problem. It is too easy for the politicians and the people than own them to change the rules in the middle of the game without a constitution. Here in the US politicians of most stripes ignore the Constitution, so they try to change the rules in the middle of the game. That has become the trademark of the American leftist.
Laws are laws, they don't need a constitution
Exactly ... We operate a common law system so previous cases fully document our rights. Can new cases interpret laws? of course but the US supreme court "re-interprets" the constitution. Can new laws be written to repeal or change old laws? of course but this occurs with the constitution as well... how many amendments are there? 27 ...

IF the constitution was immutable there would be a valid stance BUT IT ISN'T. Sure it is hard to make an amendment BUT equally it is hard to get through the commons, the lords, the crown court a new law that infringes on rights... there have been many a cases where a law the commons forced through that then got repealed by the crown court due to violation of other laws


it maybe easier to change in the UK but that is because it is single country NOT 50 countries... a constitutional change needs ratification by all states iirc BUT it doesn't stop other state implementing the intent sooner. iirc there was a situation recently where a state finally ratified a law that all other states already had and thus an old amendment became a federal amendment
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
cokey wrote:
Old School wrote:
cokey wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
cokey wrote:
A constitution should be about inalienable rights not guns and alcohol. It should be about free speech, freedom of religion, right to congregate etc. It becomes worthless when you put worthless things in it. If you can argue it then it shouldn't be in there.

By your logic, since your countrymen fought three bloody civil wars to establish the constitutional right of the people to withhold consent to the monarch's rule (civil wars which, I think we can all agree, more than qualify as "arguing"), your so-called Constitution is completely invalid. Again, by your logic.
We don't have a constitution
That is your problem. It is too easy for the politicians and the people than own them to change the rules in the middle of the game without a constitution. Here in the US politicians of most stripes ignore the Constitution, so they try to change the rules in the middle of the game. That has become the trademark of the American leftist.
Laws are laws, they don't need a constitution
Exactly ... We operate a common law system so previous cases fully document our rights. Can new cases interpret laws? of course but the US supreme court "re-interprets" the constitution. Can new laws be written to repeal or change old laws? of course but this occurs with the constitution as well... how many amendments are there? 27 ...

IF the constitution was immutable there would be a valid stance BUT IT ISN'T. Sure it is hard to make an amendment BUT equally it is hard to get through the commons, the lords, the crown court a new law that infringes on rights... there have been many a cases where a law the commons forced through that then got repealed by the crown court due to violation of other laws


it maybe easier to change in the UK but that is because it is single country NOT 50 countries... a constitutional change needs ratification by all states iirc BUT it doesn't stop other state implementing the intent sooner. iirc there was a situation recently where a state finally ratified a law that all other states already had and thus an old amendment became a federal amendment
It's not my fault they have state laws. The law should be final over all states
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5442
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well... no... They are a union and thus each state is essentially autonomous for internal affairs. The UK operates this to a degree, all the way back to the empire.
"Mother England" would set the laws but different colonies had some flexibility... Even today we have this with devolved powers with UK -> Wales and Scotland. In fact we need to implement something akin to a federal system if aspects of devolvement keep occuring. Right now Scottish MP's can vote on english-only affairs while English MP's cannot on scottish devolved powers. THEN we would need a system,a constitution clearly stating the limitation of the federalised UnitedKingdom and to change aspects of this would require agreement from England,Scotland,Wales, NI, Overseas territories....
As I said, we have this but more on an ad-hoc basis and ultimate power resides with parliament (in the granting of the exceptions) rather than in the territories (granting the commonality)

Essentially the constitution exists to limit the federal government & this occured due to the perceived tyranny from the crown (even though the colonies had life so much better than residence) . Sure it guarantees rights to the citizens of the union BUT as a byproduct of limiting the federal government. As it is a set of common law's all must agree on them as these common laws restrict what an individual state can do autonomously. A state cannot ban all guns otherwise the federal govn' would sue. Likewise the federal govn' can't ban guns because the constitution states this is a right. ALL states can agree to repeal.
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 763
Location: EU

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
On what basis do you suggest that subsidies be compared? If you compared per capita, or per GDP, Idaho would look like an even bigger beneficiary. Comparing raw dollars to each state is meaningless, since states are different sizes, and have different amounts of farms.


I don't get his beef either.

For the reason he mentions (different crops may "require" different subsidies, and of course farmers must have subsidies), but it's certainly one metric. Per GDP is another (how efficient are those subsidies?) and per kilogram of food (again, efficiency), but now i am just making up shit as a non-farmer.
_________________
wswartzendruber wrote:
Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1606
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
richk449 wrote:
On what basis do you suggest that subsidies be compared? If you compared per capita, or per GDP, Idaho would look like an even bigger beneficiary. Comparing raw dollars to each state is meaningless, since states are different sizes, and have different amounts of farms.


I don't get his beef either.

For the reason he mentions (different crops may "require" different subsidies, and of course farmers must have subsidies), but it's certainly one metric. Per GDP is another (how efficient are those subsidies?) and per kilogram of food (again, efficiency), but now i am just making up shit as a non-farmer.

My beef is that he pulled one arbitrary basis for comparison out of his ass and made the comparison. He did. Not me. He did. Not me.

Hello, McFly? Then he turns around and argued that I haven't presented a better simplistic arbitrary basis for comparison than his simplistic arbitrary basis for comparison?

Then you join in and say you don't get MY logic?

Also, try and keep up,; you're like days behind in the discussion.
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
notageek
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 131
Location: India

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Repeal 2nd. You don't need guns.

And add in constitution provisions for affirmative action for conservatives and ensure that they don't stay stupid.
_________________
"Defeat is a state of mind. No one is ever defeated, until defeat has been accepted as a reality." -- Bruce Lee
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 763
Location: EU

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
My beef is that he pulled one arbitrary basis for comparison out of his ass and made the comparison. He did. Not me. He did. Not me.


He quoted an article, so the measure isn't entirely arbitrary.

And I said it is one measure, and it's not obviously totally insane.
_________________
wswartzendruber wrote:
Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
patrix_neo
Guru
Guru


Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 464
Location: The Maldives

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
richk449 wrote:
wswartzendruber wrote:
Amendment: Liberals have to stay in the shit-states they create.

Okay. Do you still expect the liberal states to subsidize you and provide you with fruits and vegetables?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Liberal states like California that have worse living standards and education statistics than Mississippi? What a laugh! I'm looking at the agricultural counties in California, and they all seemed to have voted Trump in the last election. Just the coast and large cities went for crooked Hillary. I do not think LA or the Gay Bay produces a whole lot of lettuce.


Please do tell them about the bees they import each year from australia! Please!
Ok, I do it...they do pollenate, but the same sort of flower, so the hives die, every frickin year. While the bees stand for over 33 percent of our food.
The cali style are actually killing you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1606
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2018 1:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We stole California from Mexico anyway. And in case nobody has noticed, they're about halfway done taking it back.
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum