One LARGE order of S-HOLE coming right up!

[Kutnupe14]

Just so we're clear, you realize that "living document" means that it may be interpreted any which way someone wishes to, which allows them to do what ever they want without any real checks and balances?

And no there is no process for removing things. Only for adding things, which may negate something else.

This is double speak. Just off the top of my head, he 3/5th Compromise and Prohibition were both repealed. How one doesn't see these laws as being anything other than "removed," seems like a fairly weak argument.
Further, I have no idea what you are saying about "checks and balances," as any interpretation by one branch of govt, despite's the idea of it being a "living document," has the potential to be "checked" and "balanced" by the two other branches. How are you speaking so authoritatively on the Constitution and not know this stuff?

 

[Kutnupe14]

If both of you fellas have a DD214 we can settle this the INGO way.

I have yet to play the 214 version of Double Dragon.

 

[BugI02]

If both of you fellas have a DD214 we can settle this the [STRIKE]INGO[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]cayce[/STRIKE] [shooter] way.

Fixy

 

[jamil]

OK fellas. We all good now.

Hope so.

Last chance.

It’s probably better to temp close a thread than temp ban people for one flareup. Closing the thread punishes everyone though.

vBulletin should give mods the ability to close threads to the few individuals who misbehave, while leaving it open to everyone else.

 

[churchmouse]

It’s probably better to temp close a thread than temp ban people for one flareup. Closing the thread punishes everyone though.

vBulletin should give mods the ability to close threads to the few individuals who misbehave, while leaving it open to everyone else.

That would be a good option but vBulletin is not all that by todays standards.

If I have to close it again there might be a hammer involved dust up.

I would really like to get involved party's from some of these threads out to lunch just to see how they acted FTF.
But for the fact there are laws against using a hammer in a public place.....

 

[Expat]

BUT HE STARTED IT!

I’M TELLING MOM!

 

[jamil]

This is double speak. Just off the top of my head, he 3/5th Compromise and Prohibition were both repealed. How one doesn't see these laws as being anything other than "removed," seems like a fairly weak argument.
Further, I have no idea what you are saying about "checks and balances," as any interpretation by one branch of govt, despite's the idea of it being a "living document," has the potential to be "checked" and "balanced" by the two other branches. How are you speaking so authoritatively on the Constitution and not know this stuff?

That’s not completely true. SCOTUS has established itself as the final word on interpretation. Effectively the other two branches can do little about it. They can pass all the laws they want, and a court with a majority of “wise Latina women” could decide based on a better oucome for their favorites, rather than what the law says.


Our system of government has become a nation of people instead of a nation of laws. Law is what the majority of people in black robes say it is.

 

[jamil]

That would be a good option but vBulletin is not all that by todays standards.

If I have to close it again there might be a hammer involved dust up.

I would really like to get involved party's from some of these threads out to lunch just to see how they acted FTF.
But for the fact there are laws against using a hammer in a public place.....

Does VB allow you to ban people for hours? Maybe instead of closing a thread for all the people who aren’t misbehaving, you could give the couple of people involved an hour or few off. Then if they continue, longer.

 

[churchmouse]

Does VB allow you to ban people for hours? Maybe instead of closing a thread for all the people who aren’t misbehaving, you could give the couple of people involved an hour or few off. Then if they continue, longer.

7 days in the hole is our lowest option. I am sure that could be reduced but seriously.......that would only add to the work load. It is rough enough herding cats as it is.

I get enough butt hurt PM's as it is.

 

[Itchytriggerfinger]

I would really like to get involved party's from some of these threads out to lunch just to see how they acted FTF.

It's gonna take an awful big table what with all the dicks and DD214s being flopped down.

 

[wagyu52]

[video=youtube_share;dkdglXB7OvM]https://youtu.be/dkdglXB7OvM[/video]

Look how this evil white farmer has used his mind control on these people, making them think their community needs him.

 

[churchmouse]

[video=youtube_share;dkdglXB7OvM]https://youtu.be/dkdglXB7OvM[/video]

Look how this evil white farmer has used his mind control on these people, making them think their community needs him.

Well.......one of lifes basic needs is to eat.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That’s not completely true. SCOTUS has established itself as the final word on interpretation. Effectively the other two branches can do little about it. They can pass all the laws they want, and a court with a majority of “wise Latina women” could decide based on a better oucome for their favorites, rather than what the law says.


Our system of government has become a nation of people instead of a nation of laws. Law is what the majority of people in black robes say it is.

Regardless of what the Supreme Court does, or whatever interpretation the other branches may have, there two remaining branches have the POTENTIAL to "check" and "balance" the other. There is nothing false with that statement. If the Supreme Court issues a ruling, congress, if it has the votes can change the substance of that ruling, via law, and the president can sign it which would render that ruling moot. It may be difficult to do, but that has not changed. Thus my statement IS completely true. Tell me if you are confused about what is being said and the other options in which my words may be interpreted, and I will try to be even more clearer in the notion I am trying to present.

 

[Thor]

But for the fact there are laws against using a hammer in a public place.....

Unless there be giants about...then self defense.

 

[jamil]

Well.......one of lifes basic needs is to eat.

And smoke. He grew tobacco as well. Plus the jobs he provides.

 

[jamil]

Regardless of what the Supreme Court does, or whatever interpretation the other branches may have, there two remaining branches have the POTENTIAL to "check" and "balance" the other. There is nothing false with that statement. If the Supreme Court issues a ruling, congress, if it has the votes can change the substance of that ruling, via law, and the president can sign it which would render that ruling moot. It may be difficult to do, but that has not changed. Thus my statement IS completely true. Tell me if you are confused about what is being said and the other options in which my words may be interpreted, and I will try to be even more clearer in the notion I am trying to present.

There's a theoretical truth and a practical reality. The one is nice and all, but the other is how things actually work. R v W had no constitutional basis. That ruling was what one side of the issue wanted. I'm not arguing whether it was a better or worse outcome in terms of how it affects people. But the political outcome created a reality is that further established the power of the supreme court to whim law from thin air.

Saying that congress could change the substance of the ruling did precious little as a check against that unconstitutional power. That's when it becomes no longer a nation of laws, when you have to have enough votes to decide to follow the law as it exists, rather than the law a few people in black robes want.

 

[KLB]

There's a theoretical truth and a practical reality. The one is nice and all, but the other is how things actually work. R v W had no constitutional basis. That ruling was what one side of the issue wanted. I'm not arguing whether it was a better or worse outcome in terms of how it affects people. But the political outcome created a reality is that further established the power of the supreme court to whim law from thin air.

Saying that congress could change the substance of the ruling did precious little as a check against that unconstitutional power. That's when it becomes no longer a nation of laws, when you have to have enough votes to decide to follow the law as it exists, rather than the law a few people in black robes want.

The last check is that the court cannot enforce their rulings.

 

[Kutnupe14]

There's a theoretical truth and a practical reality. The one is nice and all, but the other is how things actually work. R v W had no constitutional basis. That ruling was what one side of the issue wanted. I'm not arguing whether it was a better or worse outcome in terms of how it affects people. But the political outcome created a reality is that further established the power of the supreme court to whim law from thin air.

Saying that congress could change the substance of the ruling did precious little as a check against that unconstitutional power. That's when it becomes no longer a nation of laws, when you have to have enough votes to decide to follow the law as it exists, rather than the law a few people in black robes want.

That I can agree with. You could've said that from the start.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The last check is that the court cannot enforce their rulings.

Yep

 

[jamil]

That I can agree with. You could've said that from the start.

"That's not completely true" comports with "There's a theoretical truth and a practical reality". Since we're talking about practical matters, a theoretical truth isn't completely true if it's not also practically true.