WRL62

[waiguoren]

@senri @senri @senri ....

Are you hungry?

This year we planted cantaloupes for the first time.

They're coming in now. Did you know that rabbits eat cantaloupes? I had no idea. They ravaged one of the nicer-looking ones.

 

[Sketch]

@N13 @N13 @N13

Are we sharpening our skills?

 

[Sketch]

This year we planted cantaloupes for the first time.

They're coming in now. Did you know that rabbits eat cantaloupes? I had no idea. They ravaged one of the nicer-looking ones.

I hope your cantaloupes rot.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I hope your cantaloupes rot.

Bad karma, bro.

 

[Sketch]

Bad karma, bro.

Nope. It's all about the fans. Poster or not, the show continues.

 

[waiguoren]

Sorry, it's fucking crazy. Why would texas be able to make a law about who can vote for an entirely federal branch of government? Moreover, Federal law supercedes state law, so you can have a situation where something is legal in your state, but illegal federally and you can be punished for it. So you do have the same laws as Texas, whether you like it or not, just not...all of them.

It's not crazy at all. It's called federalism, and it's built into the structure of the founding documents. The nation is actually just a federation of states, each with their own systems/laws. The federal (national) government is only authorized to have a short list of powers.

See my signature and the 10th Amendment. We have the longest living constitution on planet earth, and this is a big part of the reason for it, in my view: power is more decentralized than in any other wealthy nation except Switzerland. It also promotes diversity of law and culture, thereby making the US a much more interesting place to live than it would otherwise be.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Nope. It's all about the fans. Poster or not, the show continues.

Say what?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The federal (national) government is only authorized to have a short list of powers.

Aren't you a gun-grabber?

 

[Prokofievian]

It's not crazy at all. It's called federalism, and it's built into the structure of the founding documents. The nation is actually just a federation of states, each with their own systems/laws. The federal (national) government is only authorized to have a short list of powers.

Sorry, this is about levels of criminality. I raised two separate points for how having the two is nuts: you can be a criminal in a state for exercising a constitutionally protected right in a federal sphere, and you can be a federal criminal in a state where you are not otherwise a criminal. Saying where something crazy comes from doesn't really answer the charge for why it's crazy.

See my signature and the 10th Amendment. We have the longest living constitution on planet earth, and this is a big part of the reason for it, in my view: power is more decentralized than in any other wealthy nation except Switzerland. It also promotes diversity of law and culture, thereby making the US a much more interesting place to live than it would otherwise be.

You're not American, though?

 

[waiguoren]

Aren't you a gun-grabber?

Not at all. My position is almost the same as yours, except more pro-ownership and more consistent with the Constitution, but you had an emotional reaction to my position that made your brain shut off.

 

[Trotsky]

@Anung Un Rama @VivaRevolution I know you guys are a little more pro-Assad or rather neutral-Assad than I am - I think he's an incorrigible hereditary tyrant who offers nothing of worth - but I nevertheless found the framing of this Vice documentary interesting. Most optimistically, I don't think this journalist, at least in the recorded clips, had the grace to frame her questions or presentations of topics to government supporters in ways that could possibly induce a healthy dialogue.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Not at all. My position is almost the same as yours, except more pro-ownership and more consistent with the Constitution,

Hard to imagine.

but you had an emotional reaction to my position that made your brain shut off.

Even drunk and stoned off my ass that wouldn't happen on this topic. More likely you dicktucked with some stupid "oh, you're so emotional" and pretended like that won the day.

 

[waiguoren]

Sorry, this is about levels of criminality. I raised two separate points for how having the two is nuts: you can be a criminal in a state for exercising a constitutionally protected right in a federal sphere, and you can be a federal criminal in a state where you are not otherwise a criminal. Saying where something crazy comes from doesn't really answer the charge for why it's crazy.

There is no "constitutional right" for felons to vote. Search the US Constitution and find that right for me. You might go 14th Amendment on me but, no.

The states administer elections, not the federal government. There are some federal restrictions on what states can do (e.g., 26th Amendment), but they have to be either 1) in the Constitution to begin with 2) added later via the Article V amendment process. For almost all election issues, it's up to the people of each state to make sure they have a reasonable system. That's a good design choice. Decentralized elections are harder to tamper with.

You're not American, though?

Whatever you say, buddy.

Hard to imagine.

The Constitution is clear: the US federal government has no authority to regulate the sale of firearms except as a matter of interstate commerce (source: Article I, Section VIII + 10th Amendment). Madison and the other federalists were correct that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary as a matter of law (they ended up going along with it to secure ratification). So my main difference with you is that you focus on the 2nd Amendment, while I'm saying the entire structure of the document forbids federal "gun grabbing" in the first place. The 2nd Amendment could prevent state "gun grabbing" though.

Even drunk and stoned off my ass that wouldn't happen on this topic. More likely you dicktucked with some stupid "oh, you're so emotional" and pretended like that won the day.

I'm not here to "win" or whatever. Our disagreement was a quibble in the grand scheme of things, but you didn't take the time to understand my position and that's why you walked away thinking I'm a "gun grabber".

 

[tonni]

Watching The Dark Knight again.
The scene where Batman saves Rachel when Joker tosses her out the window:

Would have been much more epic if, in the meantime, Joker killed everybody in the penthouse.

And logical

 

[Prokofievian]

There is no "constitutional right" for felons to vote. Search the US Constitution and find that right for me. You might go 14th Amendment on me but, no.

There are constitutional protections for Americans to vote.

You also never go on to address the second part of my argument, that since the federal government is free to set its own criminal laws, you can be a criminal in your state without violating state law. Which is bonkers, especially if you take your federalist genetic argument as having any value. This is not limited to things of a purely federal concern (treason or immigration laws), too, so there's no escape route here.

The states administer elections, not the federal government. There are some federal restrictions on what states can do (e.g., 26th Amendment), but they have to be either 1) in the Constitution to begin with 2) added later via the Article V amendment process. For almost all election issues, it's up to the people of each state to make sure they have a reasonable system. That's a good design choice.

Again, the design has nothing to do with the argument. The founding fathers could have designed it such that criminal law was outside of state jurisdiction. They didn't, and Americans have bonkers consequences as a result. You see why invoking the federalist papers doesn't address the argument, don't you? I don't care how it came to be. It's like when people invoke free will to get out of the problem of evil: god could have created free will and perfect morality. It doesn't get you out.

It would make sense for states to administer state elections, and set laws for who can vote in those. But for federal elections? Nope. These people are all Americans, and thus should have the exact same access to their rights in Federal matters.

Decentralized elections are harder to tamper with.

No, but irrelevant.

Whatever you say, buddy.

Seriously, I thought you were Australian.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The Constitution is clear: the US federal government has no authority to regulate the sale of firearms except as a matter of interstate commerce (source: Article I, Section VIII + 10th Amendment). Madison and the other federalists were correct that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary as a matter of law (they ended up going along with it to secure ratification). So my main difference with you is that you focus on the 2nd Amendment, while I'm saying the entire structure of the document forbids federal "gun grabbing" in the first place. The 2nd Amendment could prevent state "gun grabbing" though.

If you've always stated your for the right to own whatever firearm that shoots however many rounds then I apologize for confusing you with someone who couldn't grasp something as simple as the 2nd.

I don't focus on it, I just argue it around here because we all have our areas of interest. As for state grabbing, it's not the 2nd that prohibits it (traditionally). Presser v. Illinois says the 2nd only prohibits congress from disarming the people, no the states. But notes prohibitions, such that the people can't perform the duties of the militia, are federally overridden.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

Oh, easy, you just don't have state crimes, like everywhere else in the world.

I’m finding it hard to believe that someone with a Russian screen name doesn’t understand this concept, or thinks it doesn’t exist elsewhere in the world. Do you think Chechnya and Tuva have the same local laws?

Sorry, it's fucking crazy. Why would texas be able to make a law about who can vote for an entirely federal branch of government? Moreover, Federal law supercedes state law, so you can have a situation where something is legal in your state, but illegal federally and you can be punished for it. So you do have the same laws as Texas, whether you like it or not, just not...all of them.

so crazy that just about every large nation in the world that has widely different cultures and ethnic groups uses it.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Who did the stupid abbreviation to the thread title? Is this hipster or government?

 

[Prokofievian]

I’m finding it hard to believe that someone with a Russian screen name doesn’t understand this concept, or thinks it doesn’t exist elsewhere in the world. Do you think Chechnya and Tuva have the same local laws?

I'm not Russian. If you would like to discuss Prokofiev, we can do that, and I'd be delighted to do so.

so crazy that just about every large nation in the world that has widely different cultures and ethnic groups uses it.

Yes. Pants on head stupid.

 

[Fawlty]

Who did the stupid abbreviation to the thread title? Is this hipster or government?

I did. Don't like it? Good.