The Ameяican Government Thread

1633634636638639642

Comments

  • AzureAzure E-Sports is fucking retarded. Joined: Posts: 9,325 ✭✭✭ Former OG
    Wasted wrote: »
    And eminent domain means that the Government can just buy it back.

    "Buy it back."

    *derisive giggle*

    *derisive snort*
    "Orgasm is a simile for the emotional epiphany a woman has when the shame of penetration is eclipsed by the inherent virtue of servicing a man." ~ Kromo.

    eSports is fucking retarded.
  • CDB2CDB2 Joined: Posts: 3,211


    mjEyDap.gif

    Tekken 7: Kazyua, Dragnov
    Injustice: Black Adam, Starfire, Batman, Sub-Zero
    SFV: Laura, Menat
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,303
    edited November 14
    Yep. Also, if the owners can find a way to up the value, then the Government would have to pay more for it, further adding to the costs if the wall.

    Economic warfare, really.
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • VeseriusVeserius Hold Down Back Joined: Posts: 11,498
    Pertho wrote: »
    (even the libertarian went full dumbfuck)

    the entire libertarian ideology is like governance fanfiction.

    Also man i was gone for a few months and I think this thread is actually hurting your mental health dude.
    Vuh-sair-ee-us or just Ves I guess | Twitter | Youtube  | Maj's Footsie Handbook  | My TMNT:TF Netplay Guide
  • Shin AkumaShin Akuma "History is to ascribe the American Revolution to THOMAS PAINE." ― John Adams Joined: Posts: 1,647
    edited November 15
    Reticently wrote: »
    Wasted wrote: »
    No, it comes from the Declaration of Independence.

    Your constitutional rights are considered natural law, yes. Provided by our "creator".

    You're conflating the Declaration of Independence with the Bill of Rights. But hey, I don't even know what Australia's governing document is named, so no judgement from me.

    The Bill of Rights grants those particular rights, but doesn't mention a "creator" or even natural law. Certainly nothing about "God".
    The Bill of Rights doesn't have to mention "Creator" or "Natural Law". The Bill of Rights is merely an extension of the Constitution. Basically, treat the Bill of Rights as if it were an add-on to the Constitution. Both are essentially one document.
    1. The Declaration of Independence
    2. a) The Constitution
      b) The Bill of Rights
    These 3 documents work together.
    1. The Declaration of Independence states that your rights are given to you by God - The Creator.
    2. The Constitution states "God's Law", which is "The Supreme Law of the Land".
    3. The Bill of Rights states specific protections of these God-given rights, under the umbrella of "God's Law".
    The Declaration mentions "Law of Nature and Nature's God", but the only rights it talks about are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to dissolve governments when the first three are impugned.
    It says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    You have more rights which are not stated in the Declaration.
    And the Declaration isn't part of the Constitution anyway.
    Depends on how you look at it. You can't have one without the other two. None of it works if ALL are not present.
    Reticently wrote: »
    Wasted wrote: »
    No, I meant the Declaration of Independence.

    http://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html

    The Declaration mentions those three inalienable (natural) rights, yes.

    The Bill of Rights lays out the manner in which those natural rights are protected.

    But hey, I didn't write them. Not my logic.

    I mean the Declaration doesn't mention the rights in the tweet, ie guns, assembly, speech, religion.

    Nor is the Declaration a philosophical underpinning of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.. So the fact that the Declaration mentions natural law and a creator doesn't have any bearing on the fact the Second Amendment enumerates a right bear arms, or that the First Amendment enumerates the other three
    Yes it is.
    The Declaration doesn't say that a 'creator' gives Walsh the rights he listed, and even if it did say that it isn't part of the law anyway.
    Depends on how you look at it.
    The rights under law that exist in the US are by common assent of the people, not by inalienable fiat of some creator.
    :rofl: God's Law/Natural Law >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any human/man-made law(s).

    Rights under the law DO NOT exist as a result of "common assent of the people."

    W5s7ldp.png
    The Declation of Independence (by Thomas Jefferson - main writer)
    Thomas Jefferson was heavily influenced by William Blackstone & John Locke, among others. And thus, Jefferson used the above passage by William Blackstone and inserted it into the DOI.
    qXiVuCr.jpg
    Post edited by Shin Akuma on
    “A goal is not always meant to be reached, it often serves simply as something to aim at.”Bruce Lee
    “Gentlemen, we will chase perfection, and we will chase it relentlessly, knowing all the while we can never attain it. But along the way, we shall catch excellence.Vince Lombardi Jr.
    "Execution wins games." Execution > Strategy. "Execution is like the sun ― every single aspect of fighting games revolves around it." ― Me
    "KNOWING (strategy) is not enough, we must apply. Willing is not enough, we must DO (execute)." ― Bruce Lee • Leonardo da Vinci • Johann Wolfgang von Goethe • Sun Tzu
    "One may KNOW (strategy) how to conquer without being able to DO (execute) it." "He wins his battles by making NO mistakes. Making NO mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory. ― Sun Tzu
    "If you can execute everything you want to at the right time, you can't lose. And that's why Tomo (Ohira) was the best ever. EXECUTION. He's just quicker, faster, better trained than anyone that's ever lived." ― Jeff Schaefer
  • DarksakulDarksakul Your lack of faith disturbs me Joined: Posts: 23,899
    Wasted wrote: »
    And eminent domain means that the Government can just buy it back.

    But they have to do it at fair market value, and you can still try to fight in in court if you got a good reason.
    Like historical significance or something of that nature.
    “Strong people don't put others down... They lift them up.”
    - Darth Vader, Philanthropist
  • MCPMCP Joined: Posts: 2,201 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    edited November 15
    So even Senator Orrin Hatch is against the changes in the Tax Bill that would repeal the Individual Mandate in the Affordable Care Act.

    Also this sudden conspiracy theory from Pertho has me wondering if his account is hacked.

    Either way, no sources, so it's just that.
  • FrostyAUFrostyAU Lynx in your sinks Joined: Posts: 8,537
    edited November 15
    Wasted wrote: »
    And eminent domain means that the Government can just buy it back.

    Yep and they know it but they need to go through the courts for it and it will make the project more expensive and time consuming as they intend to put up a legal fight over it.

    They actually retained a lawyer who specialises in land laws and eminent domain and knows how to cause legal headaches.
    2 Kings 2:24
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,303
    edited November 15
    Congress can transfer the title of the land through an Act, though.

    Then their only recourse would be to sue the Government.

    Not that I see this happening in this case.
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • FrostyAUFrostyAU Lynx in your sinks Joined: Posts: 8,537
    Obviously you know more than a team of lawyers.

    They're clearly wasting time and money because none of those wealthy professionals know what they're doing.
    2 Kings 2:24
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,303
    No, thats just what I saw on Wikipedia.

    Still has to be compensated for, and it has to be taken for public use, but the Government doesn't exactly have to ask permission.
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,303
    edited November 15
    I wasn't really paying attention to Uranium One. Interesting to see, though.
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • StarhammerStarhammer The Laughing Man of SRK. Joined: Posts: 20,736 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    edited November 15
    Raz0r wrote: »

    Glad you already have the appropriate gif attached. You are learning, and that is good.

    -Starhammer-
    Always think it's strange when black dudes accuse other black dudes of not being hood enough. Like isn't that a good thing?

    AV by Rick Ross.
  • PerthoPertho The Runed One Joined: Posts: 22,165 mod
    Veserius wrote: »
    Pertho wrote: »
    (even the libertarian went full dumbfuck)

    the entire libertarian ideology is like governance fanfiction.

    Also man i was gone for a few months and I think this thread is actually hurting your mental health dude.

    I literally just came back too. :rofl:
    Ronin Chaos on Pertho:

    "Oh, Pertho. You complete me."
    jimmy1200 wrote: »
    pertho attacked me first, saying i get all my life tips from 106th and park.
  • FrostyAUFrostyAU Lynx in your sinks Joined: Posts: 8,537
    Wasted wrote: »
    No, thats just what I saw on Wikipedia.

    Still has to be compensated for, and it has to be taken for public use, but the Government doesn't exactly have to ask permission.

    Right well Wikipedia vs. a very expensive decision from a socially active, successful company, I'm probably going to go with the company knowing what they're doing before what you read on Wikipedia.

    They said they're ready for a fight and retained a lawyer, they wouldn't have done that if it was pointless. I'm sure they've looked at a bit more than Wikipedia.
    2 Kings 2:24
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,303
    edited November 15
    Scoff all you want. Eminent domain as a concept isn't difficult to understand.

    You're Australian - ever watched The Castle? Similar thing.

    If you're going to pit Cards Against Humanity, versus the Government, I'm going to wager the Government is the victor.

    You're also pitting CAH against a President who made a living abusing eminent domain.

    http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation14.html

    Eminent domain is a longstanding power held by the Government. They can start a condemnation order, which goes through courts, etc. But, if Congress are the ones taking the land, they can only do so via legislature (i.e. an Act).

    If anything, I think CAH knows they won't win. Their true goal is to create as much red tape as possible.
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • FrostyAUFrostyAU Lynx in your sinks Joined: Posts: 8,537
    Wasted wrote: »
    Scoff all you want. Eminent domain as a concept isn't difficult to understand.

    You're Australian - ever watched The Castle? Similar thing.

    If you're going to pit Cards Against Humanity, versus the Government, I'm going to wager the Government is the victor.

    You're also pitting CAH against a President who made a living abusing eminent domain.

    http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation14.html

    Eminent domain is a longstanding power held by the Government. They can start a condemnation order, which goes through courts, etc. But, if Congress are the ones taking the land, they can only do so via legislature (i.e. an Act).

    If anything, I think CAH knows they won't win. Their true goal is to create as much red tape as possible.

    You're literally talking out your ass. I'm not arguing about eminent domain, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm just saying if it was simple they wouldn't have stated that they retained a lawyer that specialises in it.

    Obviously you know everything though. Because you read Wikipedia they're just wasting their time and the whole exercise is pointless.

    As I said above, you obviously know much more than a successful group of professionals and their legal team.
    2 Kings 2:24
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,303
    FrostyAU wrote: »
    Wasted wrote: »
    Scoff all you want. Eminent domain as a concept isn't difficult to understand.

    You're Australian - ever watched The Castle? Similar thing.

    If you're going to pit Cards Against Humanity, versus the Government, I'm going to wager the Government is the victor.

    You're also pitting CAH against a President who made a living abusing eminent domain.

    http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation14.html

    Eminent domain is a longstanding power held by the Government. They can start a condemnation order, which goes through courts, etc. But, if Congress are the ones taking the land, they can only do so via legislature (i.e. an Act).

    If anything, I think CAH knows they won't win. Their true goal is to create as much red tape as possible.

    You're literally talking out your ass. I'm not arguing about eminent domain, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm just saying if it was simple they wouldn't have stated that they retained a lawyer that specialises in it.

    Why WOULDN'T you hire a lawyer who specialises in it? Regardless of your overall objective?

    Why would a company ever take on the Government without experts on their side?

    Do you actually read what you post?
    Obviously you know everything though. Because you read Wikipedia they're just wasting their time and the whole exercise is pointless.

    Get out of your safe space and take a breath.

    One way or the other, they're an obstacle for the Government. That's hardly a pointless exercise, especially if they can up the value and make the Government spend MORE.
    As I said above, you obviously know much more than a successful group of professionals and their legal team.

    No. I just know more than you.
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,303
    dab00g wrote: »
    Two australians talking about emminent domain in the us with zero intel

    Gotta start somewhere. Our eminent domain laws are similar, upon further inspection anyway.

    On the flipside:

    http://www.newsweek.com/trump-administration-hiring-12-attorneys-seize-land-his-border-wall-710444
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • FrostyAUFrostyAU Lynx in your sinks Joined: Posts: 8,537
    edited November 15
    You don't know shit. You think you do because you completely missed the point, you're ranting to me about shit you read on Wikipedia without actually bothering to comprehend what I wrote.

    They don't expect to stop the wall by holding onto a plot of land forever. As I wrote above, they're intending to make the project more expensive and time consuming. It can also create a flashpoint for protests and demonstrations, they're creating drama as their own form of social protest.

    I never once said the government wouldn't eventually get the land.
    2 Kings 2:24
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,303
    FrostyAU wrote: »
    You don't know shit. You think you do because you completely missed the point, you're ranting to me about shit you read on Wikipedia without actually bothering to comprehend what I wrote.

    To the contrary, I've already addressed your point.
    They don't expect to stop the wall by holding onto a plot of land forever. As I wrote above, they're intending to make the project more expensive and time consuming. It can also create a flashpoint for protests and demonstrations, they're creating drama as their own form of social protest.

    I already said that.
    I never once said the government wouldn't eventually get the land.

    Nor did I ever claim you did.

    Take two good steps back, read over the thread again, and get down from your self-described elitist high horse.
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • StarhammerStarhammer The Laughing Man of SRK. Joined: Posts: 20,736 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    I hope they build the wall around their property, effectively closing them off on one side of it. I would laugh my ass off at them.

    -Starhammer-
    Always think it's strange when black dudes accuse other black dudes of not being hood enough. Like isn't that a good thing?

    AV by Rick Ross.
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,303
    Imagine how it would feel to be the final piece of the wall...
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • DoctaMarioDoctaMario Sometimes It Snows In April... Joined: Posts: 3,480
    Wasted wrote: »
    dab00g wrote: »
    Wasted wrote: »
    Not really. I understand the concept of licencing quite well. Remember, I actually HAVE mandatory registration in my country.

    If you want licencing and registration, just say so. Don't make the comparison of licencing guns like cars, because that logic falls apart immediately.

    Again the line between fully and semi could be manipulated by skill or mods

    Yes, I know that you can simulate full-auto fire with bumpfiring. You can do it with your thumb, I demonstrated that earlier.
    I think changes need to be made and that it is never to late to change things

    Making bullets really expensive is a game changer

    Making our system better and having thorough background checks mandatory does help weed out a lot of crazy assholes

    Better background checks, yes, I agree. Those are measures that can be put in place by the executive, and which don't require additional legislative power. I'm all for that.

    Seattle tried a firearms and ammo tax, though. It failed (Yes, I know it's Fox, sadly). Gun violence went up and deaths doubled. Correlation, not causation, here, but it didn't have the desired effect.

    I have the gun control solution: it's not actually "gun control," it's geofencing. You'd never get the NRA to agree to geofencing funs themselves, but putting a tiny chip on every bullet and if more than 50 bullets move outside a particular location, the local authorities get alerted and they show up to wherever you are for a little chat.
  • DoctaMarioDoctaMario Sometimes It Snows In April... Joined: Posts: 3,480
    edited November 15
    Darksakul wrote: »
    Pertho wrote: »
    k4polo wrote: »

    I don't think anyone is too shocked that the Trumps and Wikileaks seemed to be working together.

    Are you shocked that Bernie purposefully ran a campaign he knew was going to lose so the DNC could keep the political donations to fuel its operations?

    Nope. Bernie is as crooked as any other politician.
    Partially I think you can't even work in that sector in DC without some "blood" on your hands, and as much as people want to put Bernie on a pedestal, he no way the saint he tries to appear to be on TV.

    That piece they did on John Boehner had John saying "Bernie was the most honest guy to run for president, he really believes all the crazy things he says" and Boehner directly shit on a lot of people in that same article so...I don't think he'd like about that.
  • StarhammerStarhammer The Laughing Man of SRK. Joined: Posts: 20,736 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    edited November 15


    OUCH. Nigel just threw em out in the street.

    -Starhammer-
    Always think it's strange when black dudes accuse other black dudes of not being hood enough. Like isn't that a good thing?

    AV by Rick Ross.
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,303
    edited November 15
    DoctaMario wrote: »
    Wasted wrote: »
    dab00g wrote: »
    Wasted wrote: »
    Not really. I understand the concept of licencing quite well. Remember, I actually HAVE mandatory registration in my country.

    If you want licencing and registration, just say so. Don't make the comparison of licencing guns like cars, because that logic falls apart immediately.

    Again the line between fully and semi could be manipulated by skill or mods

    Yes, I know that you can simulate full-auto fire with bumpfiring. You can do it with your thumb, I demonstrated that earlier.
    I think changes need to be made and that it is never to late to change things

    Making bullets really expensive is a game changer

    Making our system better and having thorough background checks mandatory does help weed out a lot of crazy assholes

    Better background checks, yes, I agree. Those are measures that can be put in place by the executive, and which don't require additional legislative power. I'm all for that.

    Seattle tried a firearms and ammo tax, though. It failed (Yes, I know it's Fox, sadly). Gun violence went up and deaths doubled. Correlation, not causation, here, but it didn't have the desired effect.

    I have the gun control solution: it's not actually "gun control," it's geofencing. You'd never get the NRA to agree to geofencing funs themselves, but putting a tiny chip on every bullet and if more than 50 bullets move outside a particular location, the local authorities get alerted and they show up to wherever you are for a little chat.

    Well, at least it's a proposal.

    To me, though, that's literally legislative control. Manufacturers are going to be compelled to apply that technology. It will require a new law, a technological solution to track, trace, archive the information of the probably millions, if not nearly billions of rounds in existence (or that will come into existence), a department or other resources to maintain said technology, etc.

    The obvious questions that I feel need to be asked:

    Rounds can come in boxes of more than 50 (50 is usually one box). If I buy a box of 100 .22LR rounds, am I going to have the cops show up outside the store?

    What would constitute acceptable and unacceptable reasons for purchasing/moving more than 50 rounds?

    Who is going to pay for the local law enforcement to maintain their bureaucratic measures related to all these enquiries?

    What's the penalty for failure of the authorities to attend to these ammunition alerts?

    How will the Fed (I am assuming this will be a Federal law) follow-up or audit non-compliance?
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • FrostyAUFrostyAU Lynx in your sinks Joined: Posts: 8,537
    Wasted wrote: »
    FrostyAU wrote: »
    You don't know shit. You think you do because you completely missed the point, you're ranting to me about shit you read on Wikipedia without actually bothering to comprehend what I wrote.

    To the contrary, I've already addressed your point.
    They don't expect to stop the wall by holding onto a plot of land forever. As I wrote above, they're intending to make the project more expensive and time consuming. It can also create a flashpoint for protests and demonstrations, they're creating drama as their own form of social protest.

    I already said that.
    I never once said the government wouldn't eventually get the land.

    Nor did I ever claim you did.

    Take two good steps back, read over the thread again, and get down from your self-described elitist high horse.

    You're ridiculous. You're trying to teach me about eminent domain like I ever argued that it wasn't a thing. They know it's a thing, they have a lawyer to drag the process out. It's a protest, they don't believe because they went and bought the land it will be impossible for the wall to be built now. I never stated that would be the case either.

    I think you need to read the thread again. Seriously. You said they wouldn't sue the government. They plan to, hence the lawyers, even if they don't win it's a time wasting strategy. I never said they'd win, winning the battle wasn't the point though, it was fighting it.

    I never tried to say at all that eminent domain was not a thing, you just wrote multiple paragraphs explaining it to make yourself feel good. I know it's a thing. I don't doubt the power of it, you're just talking to a wall as the point was never taking it away permanently so the government couldn't get it. It's just forcing a battle over it to make the project harder to complete.
    2 Kings 2:24
  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,303
    edited November 15
    FrostyAU wrote: »
    Wasted wrote: »
    FrostyAU wrote: »
    You don't know shit. You think you do because you completely missed the point, you're ranting to me about shit you read on Wikipedia without actually bothering to comprehend what I wrote.

    To the contrary, I've already addressed your point.
    They don't expect to stop the wall by holding onto a plot of land forever. As I wrote above, they're intending to make the project more expensive and time consuming. It can also create a flashpoint for protests and demonstrations, they're creating drama as their own form of social protest.

    I already said that.
    I never once said the government wouldn't eventually get the land.

    Nor did I ever claim you did.

    Take two good steps back, read over the thread again, and get down from your self-described elitist high horse.

    You're ridiculous. You're trying to teach me about eminent domain like I ever argued that it wasn't a thing. They know it's a thing, they have a lawyer to drag the process out. It's a protest, they don't believe because they went and bought the land it will be impossible for the wall to be built now. I never stated that would be the case either.

    I think you need to read the thread again. Seriously. You said they wouldn't sue the government. They plan to, hence the lawyers, even if they don't win it's a time wasting strategy. I never said they'd win, winning the battle wasn't the point though, it was fighting it.

    I was referring to Congress taking possession via an Act, not the suing.
    I never tried to say at all that eminent domain was not a thing, you just wrote multiple paragraphs explaining it to make yourself feel good. I know it's a thing. I don't doubt the power of it, you're just talking to a wall as the point was never taking it away permanently so the government couldn't get it. It's just forcing a battle over it to make the project harder to complete.

    You didn't try and say it wasn't a thing, no. Instead, you questioned me when I claimed Congress could take land via an Act.

    And then you cracked the shits at me because I dared to talk about a legal dispute despite not being a lawyer.
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • FrostyAUFrostyAU Lynx in your sinks Joined: Posts: 8,537
    Wasted wrote: »
    FrostyAU wrote: »
    Wasted wrote: »
    FrostyAU wrote: »
    You don't know shit. You think you do because you completely missed the point, you're ranting to me about shit you read on Wikipedia without actually bothering to comprehend what I wrote.

    To the contrary, I've already addressed your point.
    They don't expect to stop the wall by holding onto a plot of land forever. As I wrote above, they're intending to make the project more expensive and time consuming. It can also create a flashpoint for protests and demonstrations, they're creating drama as their own form of social protest.

    I already said that.
    I never once said the government wouldn't eventually get the land.

    Nor did I ever claim you did.

    Take two good steps back, read over the thread again, and get down from your self-described elitist high horse.

    You're ridiculous. You're trying to teach me about eminent domain like I ever argued that it wasn't a thing. They know it's a thing, they have a lawyer to drag the process out. It's a protest, they don't believe because they went and bought the land it will be impossible for the wall to be built now. I never stated that would be the case either.

    I think you need to read the thread again. Seriously. You said they wouldn't sue the government. They plan to, hence the lawyers, even if they don't win it's a time wasting strategy. I never said they'd win, winning the battle wasn't the point though, it was fighting it.

    I was referring to Congress taking possession via an Act, not the suing.
    I never tried to say at all that eminent domain was not a thing, you just wrote multiple paragraphs explaining it to make yourself feel good. I know it's a thing. I don't doubt the power of it, you're just talking to a wall as the point was never taking it away permanently so the government couldn't get it. It's just forcing a battle over it to make the project harder to complete.

    You didn't try and say it wasn't a thing, no. Instead, you questioned me when I claimed Congress could take land via an Act.

    And then you cracked the shits at me because I dared to talk about a legal dispute despite not being a lawyer.

    I didn't question you. You thought I did because I called you out for acting like a know it all because you're on the internet and can google and read Wikipedia. I never cracked the shits at you. I just said that they did it for a reason, which I stated above, and you proceeded to go off on your high horse because you need more of a life.
    2 Kings 2:24
  • BR3N7BR3N7 All eyez on me! Joined: Posts: 2,115


    We got Faux/Fox doing their best Jackass/Hyde impression going from reality to Hannity trying to explain the Ken Flowchart.



    Then we got a president so informed he isn't even sure where the new mass murder site is? Hint it was in CA not TX and the same city as last time. Only shows he just wanted to know if the dude was not white to push his narrative.

    This was funny if you saw the real Senator one the dude waiting till the end to show Sessions.
  • PerthoPertho The Runed One Joined: Posts: 22,165 mod
    See, thats why this thread is great. Fuck all the serious stuff, bring up that banter
    Ronin Chaos on Pertho:

    "Oh, Pertho. You complete me."
    jimmy1200 wrote: »
    pertho attacked me first, saying i get all my life tips from 106th and park.
  • PreppyPreppy act like you're used to it Joined: Posts: 14,295 admin
    Pertho wrote: »
    My problem with the democratic, well the wacky left, is that they don't understand what they're saying. Let's take voter ID laws. Puerto Rico has them and nobody complains. On the contrary, PR hands out proactive voter IDs. What I mean by this was that, when I was 15, people from the government came to our school to make and hand out our voter IDs for the next election (since we would've been of age for it).
    I feel like being against voter ID laws is pretty centrist left and probably centrist right. Proactivity isn't the name of the game here: like racial profiling, "voter id" as implemented is an interesting way to disenfranchise people you don't like. Maybe work on getting out voter IDs for ten years and only after you're ready start requiring it.
    But then we get to the US and they get shot down by people saying "well its a hard ship because these people don't have IDs".
    Or have to drive two hours each way to go get their special ID they need once a year. I've got money and easy transportation and wouldn't drive that far for a woman.

    It's a needless clusterfuck trying to solving a problem that doesn't exist. People pushing the Voter Fraud!!! narrative are trying to sell you shit. Once you realize that those allegations are bullshit, the whole concern falls apart.

    For those interested in science not just bantz: Myth of Voter Fraud

    http://zachd.com/mvc2 : My giant archive of fighting game videos, centered around MvC2.
    "If you don't feel like killing yourself every time you lose you will never be good. Apologyman is going to be a monster someday as long as he keeps staying miserable." --Brightside6382
    "I'm sure you're very wicked people - but how dull it would be if everyone was good."