Eye contact, a thing of the past...

Anomaly100 · 2012-05-24T18:10:04.754871+00:00

Yeah, because Obama has no power to fix any of those issues and every bad thing that is done must have been inherited. If you ignore the two wars (which Obama didn't get out of any quicker, like he promised). If you ignore the Bush tax cuts (which he renewed). If you forget about the healthcare. The bailouts. The Stimulus package.. Yeah, if you forget about everything, Obama suddenly looks good...

GuadalupeSalcido · 2012-05-24T16:57:57.288766+00:00

Harassment, slander, and other charges are still applicable. And assault perhaps could be charged depending on the "irritation" bit if he put himself in an aggressive position (even if he doesn't throw a punch).

GuadalupeSalcido · 2012-05-24T16:53:58.329576+00:00

Did you read through the thread? You can't say "2 years ago, this guy pushed me, so I am allowed to break his nose today."

The situation was: He saw a guy on the street, he decided not to go over there. He would have been the initiator in this situation, if he decided to be violent at that point in time.

GuadalupeSalcido · 1 day

And the thing is, since the violence was initiated by him, he would be at fault in most states even if he was shot (and killed) as it could be done in self defense.

Especially since he is a professional boxer, a court would go heavy on him attacking someone with his fists.

erikNORML · 2 days

You say this as a majority of young voters continue to refuse to vote. It's this exact attitude that makes these numbers less than a majority. If you don't vote, your opinion doesn't get heard.

56% of people surveyed want pot legalized, do you think 56% of voters want pot legalized? That's the problem. Until this same 56% are voting in equal numbers to the 44% who don't want pot, nothing will change. It isn't even an issue of deep pockets, it's representing the people who voted accurately.

wellykachtel1 · 2 days

More treaties don't mean good treaties, was my point. Slaughter? I don't know how you are assigning values here, but it's not like Canada didn't have multiple wars with the Indians as well.

wellykachtel1 · 3 days

More treaties as if they were a good thing for the natives? C'mon, that's like saying 'more Jim Crow laws' as if that was ever a good thing.

Keep their land? Are you sure about your Canadian "bigger" claim? 55.7 million acres in the US, with 9 reserves bigger than Delaware...

Canada? 6.6 million in reserves. A lot harder to find the Canadian number btw. Here for your browsing

You'll also be interested to hear that the populations are about the same (around 1.5 million each). So yeah, Canada: Same Indian population, 1/10th the land. Maybe next time you should look into that before you make things up?

PNJL · 4 days

Chuck Testa? Nope.

ImJulianAssange · 4 days

The article ties Bayer to Nazis. I've been around long enough to see a Godwin in effect. This article is terrible. Find something else.

Arya_Chews_Her_lip · 4 days

Enough with the hate guys, so much hate here. These traffic "Good Tickets" are only given out after a routine stop (Drunk Check points, for example).

No one is being pulled over for driving correctly.

My mom was pulled over on a routine traffic stop around 15-20 years ago (random drunk stop) and was given a small pin for wearing her seat belt (this was shortly after the seat belt law went into effect). And for the record, it was in the US.

chesterriley · 4 days

I find it fairly sad and telling of Reddit that a level headed, reasonable response isn't near the top, while rabble rousing, drum beating replies about how 'Merica and 'capitalism is the devil' always make it to the top...

DimmeryAL3X · 5 days

Gotta say, this is just not a complete idea. There is no way to know what the link is until after clicking it (or using some service to do it). When you post your link, I know it's just Reddit without clicking. I also know I've seen it before (as it's purple).

ragingbuns · 5 days

Asscat

batgirlsings · 5 days

The onus of law is on you here. Cite the breach in law and provide legal evidence. Convincing evidence.

You literally have half of your total posts about Ron Paul. You are clearly a Ron Paul mega fan. Honestly. Go look at your history.

Also, you've used the "I'm an attorney, trust me" bit far too frequently. Your verbage, use of weed, and other various habits on Reddit make me wonder just how successful you could possibly be as an attorney.

I do find it odd that you would be asking for school help identifying Rolly Fingers.

Although, in my opinion, I would say you weren't an attorney (perhaps, your dad is, while you go to school to become an attorney, hint hint). I'm sure my position isn't without logical holes!

BUT, none of that matters. Just as it doesn't matter that you claim to be an attorney or not. I've called you up on logical errors and you just call my points "useless."

Look, I'm not going to continue this discussion. I'll save us both a few hours of our lives. I looked at your "discussions" with others and you basically just rub people's noses in their shit and tell them how you are qualified to know the thing you are about to say. Then you say it with internet confidence.

If you want to improve your bullshit parade, start pretending you are a constitutional lawyer, you might as well, most of the time it appears you are quoting the constitution (in the most vague way possible). It's pretty flippantly obvious that you not a constitutional lawyer.

Anyway, the point about saving us time: I'm not continuing this conversation, I won't read a reply, I won't reply. I know you will reply, it always happens (and makes me smile). I think you understand the reasoning though!

batgirlsings · 6 days

Arcuied, I think you're missing some major concepts here. Re-read what EasyMrB said and what I said.

From Easy

promised to kill a bunch of military spending AND kill the citizen snooping efforts of the NSA

From Me

the President doesn't have the power to "move troops out" just like that.

NSA? Sure

I agree, the president can fire positions at NSA, but he can't set or adjust their budget. But notice the biggest work in the sentence by Easy? AND.

So, counter points.

1) The President doesn't control the NSA agenda, though he can hire and fire, that doesn't give him direct control over the agenda or the budget. It also doesn't allow him to fire the entire NSA, as you clearly stated, he can fire the executive officers. When it comes to federal employees, there is a lot more involved.

He said he would vote for Paul if he could do both not just one. You are completely changing the original tone and point of the comment in your first paragraph. I even acknowledged exactly what you tried to describe in your first paragraph, that the Pres could start firing people. I think you may have misinterpreted or misread what I said.

2) You say the Iraq war was unconstitutional. Are you a lawyer? Are you a constitutional lawyer? I highly doubt either, no offense. But it's pretty clear you are just reiterating a Ron Paul talking point about the Iraq War being unconstitutional.

The wiki says it best, in the most neutral way possible:

Legality Main article: Legality of the Iraq War International law Further information: United Nations Charter and International law

There have been no findings by any legal tribunal with both legal authority and legal jurisdiction that any laws were violated. There are only two legal tribunals with both authority and jurisdiction to make such a finding: (1) The US federal courts and (2) the United Nations. Advisory opinions are prohibited in US Courts and are also prohibited by the UN Charter unless the security council authorizes them. There are no relevant advisory opinions or legal finding regarding the legality. The United Nations security council has made no findings on the issues. International law - right of pre-emptive self defense

There is no requirement in international law that the United States (or any nation) seek permission to initiate any war of self defense.[44] "The United States government has argued, wholly apart from Resolution 1441, that it has a right of pre-emptive self defense to protect itself from terrorism fomented by Iraq.[45] Although this position has been intensively criticized, without any legal finding for support, claims for legality or illegality are merely debates. To prove illegality it would first be necessary to prove that the US did not meet the conditions of necessity and proportionality and that the right of pre-emptive defense did not apply.[46]

I bolded the most relevant portion. It also directly correlates to the constitutional idea (That the war was created under a 'grand lie'). This is just conjecture and guesswork with no legal footing. So, if you want to scream that the war was unconstitutional, fine, you can have your opinion, but you can't tout it as a fact.

Finally, regarding the war, Paul wouldn't be able to do anything legally, in regards to Iraq. He would have no power to stop Iraq or AFG, no matter how much you want to debate the legality of it, the pres doesn't control it.

TL:DR

batgirlsings · 8 days

As AFG and Iraq are both considered Wars voted on by congress, the President doesn't have the power to "move troops out" just like that.

NSA? Sure, he could start firing people. But NSA is hardly the budget bloat compared to the military. It isn't free, but surely there are easier targets.

batgirlsings · 8 days

He proposes the budget. But that's it, after the proposal, there is zero restrictions put on congress.

Here's what would sometimes happen:

Prez proposes budget. Congress looks at it and throws it out and does their own. Like the Queen's speech, it has no actual bearing.

He could veto the patriot act, but he's had the chance already and instead he's added more power to it.

batgirlsings · 9 days

1) Preparing the budget, as president, means next to nothing. When it hits the house, they can rip it up and start over. If RP had no support in the house, his budget would just be a waste of time.

2) You won't vote for Ron Paul because he doesn't want to nix religion?

3) Veto power only works if you have a competitive supporting group AND a plan to put in place after the veto. Rarely has a president been successful with a veto in the way you've described.

batgirlsings · 9 days

As a pretty liberal dude, do you think the President actually has all that much power? Do you think Ron Paul, if elected, could actually push through military cuts or decrease the NSA snooping?

batgirlsings · 9 days

I really don't think you understand what you are talking about. 300 mil for infrastructure? Which bill? School funding? The majority of that is done at the state/district level as the majority of public school funds are done at that level as well.

I understand your general sentiment, that we should be able to cut military spending (and immediately put it somewhere else...?) But I can't really get behind the idea that you should rob from Peter to pay for Paul when the entire Beatles owe money. If you want to make military cuts, fine, but don't immediately spend it elsewhere.

ZaJoCa · 9 days

It was never about OBL. It was about the group of people.

Honestly, tip for you. Why on earth would you start a reasonable discussion asking someone their age? Condescending from the get go? Do you hold up a sign and scream "PLEASE BE HOSTILE TO ME" or something?

C'mon, be respectful. If you cut out that one stupid sentence your post's tone wouldn't be condescending.

And frankly, you are making bold assumptions without any proof. You are assuming the US didn't try this or could have pulled it off. Also, hindsight is 20/20, saying that if we had a Spec Ops team at XYZ point in Pakistan in 2002 could have saved many lives by killing OBL? Please, that's foolish.

ZaJoCa · 10 days

When you make predictions in hindsight, you can look pretty good.

Areat · 10 days

I don't have a clue why...

Nate1492

TROPHY CASE

Nate1492

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login