War Room Lounge v86: Just ensure they don't accidentally 'ban' you

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good lord.

Who here wants to see @Quipling and I engage in a spirited debate about internal medicine? We may come off as not knowing anything to actual medical professionals, but that's just because they're shills and didn't actually go to medical school, and we know more than them.
 
Trotsky said:
Good lord.

Who here wants to see @Quipling and I engage in a spirited debate about internal medicine? We may come off as not knowing anything to actual medical professionals, but that's just because they're shills and didn't actually go to medical school, and we know more than them.
Click to expand...
"let me use big words to sound like I know what I'm talking about!"

LiquidityTrap said:
muhhh racism

muhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Click to expand...

 
I'd offer you a bet on that, but I wouldn't want to take advantage of you. Remember the last time you tried to bet me?
 
Sycho Sid said:
I have this strange feeling you won't be around long this time.
Click to expand...
As I just mentioned over in the bet thread, I really don't think he fully grasps that allllll those outstanding wagers- bets he trawled through the much for- are completely shot.
If you want to give him a hard time, imo taunt him over putting so much time and energy into the bet thread only to have the account banned.
 
Sycho Sid said:
Hey guys, its cool to be a racist piece of shit on here! You just do it until they ban you, then later that day come back and pretend not to be a racist anymore.
Click to expand...
But wouldn’t this sub be so boring without recent bans making threads about how unfair it is that whiteface and blackface don’t get the same treatment?

Somehow those don’t get dumped...
 
A.C. said:
But wouldn’t this sub be so boring without recent bans making threads about how unfair it is that whiteface and blackface don’t get the same treatment?

Somehow those don’t get dumped...
Click to expand...
I remember when I joined Sherdog you had like a week wait until your account got approved for posting and had to be a yellow belt to start threads.
 
LiquidityTrap said:
@Mendacious

Yeah, I asked @Trotsky to explain how growing a product for personal use only, with that product never crossing state lines could possibly fall under "interstate commerce". He responded with paragraphs that didn't even come close to answering the question.

It's very convenient for people to ignore the ICC in their quest to create new federal programs. Thomas's jurisprudence points strongly in the direction of overturning Wickard and putting the federal government on a solid constitutional foundation. Now we've got Gorsuch too. Kavanaugh seems ok but I haven't read enough of his opinions to judge. I'm also concerned that Trump will nominate Barrett to replace Ginsburg (Axios reported this). I'm not convinced she's an originalist at all.
Click to expand...
The argument is there in the decision but using that logic, everything is interconnected and therefore everything should fall under the control of the federal government. It's ridiculous. An argument can be made, but to most reasonable people, they wouldn't come to that conclusion
 
@Mendacious

Yep, and I specifically asked the fake lawyer @Trotsky which specific activities would not fall under "interstate commerce" by his definition. He had no response, as is typical for him.
 
Trotsky said:
Good lord.

Who here wants to see @Quipling and I engage in a spirited debate about internal medicine? We may come off as not knowing anything to actual medical professionals, but that's just because they're shills and didn't actually go to medical school, and we know more than them.
Click to expand...
Is it just me or does he keep quoting the dissenting opinion to support his stance?

Does he not realize that in order for an opinion to hold weight it has to be in the holding of the majority opinion?
 
@Gregolian
Is it just me or does he keep quoting the dissenting opinion to support his stance?

Does he not realize that in order for an opinion to hold weight it has to be in the holding of the majority opinion?
Click to expand...

The dissenting opinion I cited does not have force of law because Ginsburg and pals ruled that the federal government does have the authority to regulate marijuana for personal use. Another Trump appointment and that ruling will be overturned.

Did you agree with the majority in Dred Scott? I hope not. It was wrong at the time and it's still wrong now.
 
LiquidityTrap said:
@Gregolian


The dissenting opinion I cited does not have force of law because Ginsburg and pals ruled that the federal government does have the authority to regulate marijuana for personal use. Another Trump appointment and that ruling will be overturned.

Did you agree with the majority in Dred Scott? I hope not. It was wrong at the time and it's still wrong now.
Click to expand...
You know that to have a ruling overturned they have to agree to hear a case that uses that opinion as the basis for a decision right and rule against the decision supported by the prior ruling right?
 
Why is Seven Nation Army constantly remixed/used for shit?

 
Gregolian said:
Is it just me or does he keep quoting the dissenting opinion to support his stance?

Does he not realize that in order for an opinion to hold weight it has to be in the holding of the majority opinion?
Click to expand...

He's not exceedingly bright. That he's referring back to a much-maligned dissent by a guy widely considered to be the most incompetent Justice in modern history is lost on him. But, as I said before, anyone interested in the issue would be well off to read the actual majority opinion and Scalia concurrence. If you do both and are still somehow persuaded by Thomas, check in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,275,082
Messages
57,967,391
Members
175,884
Latest member
cloudfair

Share this page

Back
Top