Discussion:
Refusing service
(too old to reply)
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 22:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
in understanding what words mean.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-22 22:32:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific cases,
I would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution.... and make Liberal laws.
--
That's Karma
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific cases,
I would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.

But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-22 23:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific cases,
I would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Slavery as a punishment seems like it may be less cruel than being
locked up (many people locked up will volunteer for outside work to get
out of an 8X8 PRISON CELL) and it's NOT unusual since many people over
many centuries were slaves and ObamaCare is a form of slavery so the
method of slavery could even be legal slavery like picking up trash or
attending a drunk driver mandated class or a halfway house where
behavior is required to live there, or house arrest where you are
required to be there and pay for that privilege. Or boot camp for some.
--
That's Karma
Scout
2017-01-23 02:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific cases,
I would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Slavery as a punishment seems like it may be less cruel than being
locked up (many people locked up will volunteer for outside work to get
out of an 8X8 PRISON CELL) and it's NOT unusual since many people over
many centuries were slaves and ObamaCare is a form of slavery so the
method of slavery could even be legal slavery like picking up trash or
attending a drunk driver mandated class or a halfway house where
behavior is required to live there, or house arrest where you are
required to be there and pay for that privilege. Or boot camp for some.
Let's just call it was it is, involuntary servitude, and save the confusion
over semantics.

Personally, I think prisoners should be forced to work in a manner that
supports their own incarceration. From growing food, running some services
of the prison, and even doing such work as the prison gets paid for them to
perform. In the end, it shouldn't cost the state anything to house, cloth,
feed, and otherwise serve the needs of the inmates. Their own forced labor
should be covering all those needs and expenses.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific cases,
I would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Then it's a good thing that neither involuntary servitude or enslavement as
punishment for your crime would be a cruel and unusual punishment.

After all, the 13th was adopted after the 8th so if these were cruel and
unusual punishments the 8th could no longer be a basis for denying such a
sentence because the 13th would have changed, altered, modified and or
eliminated such restrictions on these two forms of punishment.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 03:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific cases,
I would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Then it's a good thing that neither involuntary servitude or enslavement
as punishment for your crime would be a cruel and unusual punishment.
Slavery, of course, is not permitted.
Just Wondering
2017-01-23 08:19:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death
penalty for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't
developed as to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Then it's a good thing that neither involuntary servitude or enslavement
as punishment for your crime would be a cruel and unusual punishment.
Slavery, of course, is not permitted.
I'll not argue that point, other than to point out that
while 13A on its face would appear to allow it as a criminal
punishment, even without construing 13A slavery is not permitted
because there is no criminal statute that allows a court to impose
slavery as a punishment.

Anyway, that is a different issue than whether slavery would
be cruel and unusual punishment for a particular crime. Regardless
of 13A, I suspect that any modern court would say it is.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-23 19:30:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death
penalty for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't
developed as to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Then it's a good thing that neither involuntary servitude or enslavement
as punishment for your crime would be a cruel and unusual punishment.
Slavery, of course, is not permitted.
I'll not argue that point, other than to point out that
while 13A on its face would appear to allow it as a criminal
punishment, even without construing 13A slavery is not permitted
because there is no criminal statute that allows a court to impose
slavery as a punishment.
That has already been proven false....

Picking up garbage for your community service is a form of slavery.

If they pay you as in jury duty or a court ordered baking of a gay
wedding cake then it's involuntary servitude.

A forced labor chain Gang or Military hard labor is also slavery.
--
That's Karma
Just Wondering
2017-01-24 01:47:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death
penalty for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't
developed as to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Then it's a good thing that neither involuntary servitude or enslavement
as punishment for your crime would be a cruel and unusual punishment.
Slavery, of course, is not permitted.
I'll not argue that point, other than to point out that
while 13A on its face would appear to allow it as a criminal
punishment, even without construing 13A slavery is not permitted
because there is no criminal statute that allows a court to impose
slavery as a punishment.
That has already been proven false....
Picking up garbage for your community service is a form of slavery.
You have been studying language at the feet of Humpty Dumpty.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
If they pay you as in jury duty or a court ordered baking of a gay
wedding cake then it's involuntary servitude.
Perhaps so, but it's not slavery.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
A forced labor chain Gang or Military hard labor is also slavery.
No, because slavery turns people into property that can be bought, sold,
and owned.
Just Wondering
2017-01-23 08:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment
which has been interpreted such that the government
cannot take your life without a very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific
cases, I would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that
the right to life has been defined and is enforced by
the law....it's just speculation.> Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Then it's a good thing that neither involuntary servitude or enslavement
as punishment for your crime would be a cruel and unusual punishment.
After all, the 13th was adopted after the 8th so if these were cruel and
unusual punishments the 8th could no longer be a basis for denying such
a sentence because the 13th would have changed, altered, modified and or
eliminated such restrictions on these two forms of punishment.
What makes you think 13A has anything to do with whether a particular
punishment for a particular crime is cruel and unusual?
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-23 19:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment
which has been interpreted such that the government
cannot take your life without a very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific
cases, I would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that
the right to life has been defined and is enforced by
the law....it's just speculation.> Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't
developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Then it's a good thing that neither involuntary servitude or enslavement
as punishment for your crime would be a cruel and unusual punishment.
After all, the 13th was adopted after the 8th so if these were cruel and
unusual punishments the 8th could no longer be a basis for denying such
a sentence because the 13th would have changed, altered, modified and or
eliminated such restrictions on these two forms of punishment.
What makes you think 13A has anything to do with whether a particular
punishment for a particular crime is cruel and unusual?
It doesn't matter since it clearly makes it legal (constitutional) in
the separate case of a person duly convicted of a crime.
--
That's Karma
Just Wondering
2017-01-24 01:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment
which has been interpreted such that the government
cannot take your life without a very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific
cases, I would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that
the right to life has been defined and is enforced by
the law....it's just speculation.> Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Then it's a good thing that neither involuntary servitude or enslavement
as punishment for your crime would be a cruel and unusual punishment.
After all, the 13th was adopted after the 8th so if these were cruel and
unusual punishments the 8th could no longer be a basis for denying such
a sentence because the 13th would have changed, altered, modified and or
eliminated such restrictions on these two forms of punishment.
What makes you think 13A has anything to do with whether a particular
punishment for a particular crime is cruel and unusual?
It doesn't matter since it clearly makes it legal (constitutional) in
the separate case of a person duly convicted of a crime.
Not necessarily. Not if in a particular case a sentence of slavery
would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Scout
2017-01-24 05:46:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment
which has been interpreted such that the government
cannot take your life without a very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific
cases, I would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that
the right to life has been defined and is enforced by
the law....it's just speculation.> Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Then it's a good thing that neither involuntary servitude or enslavement
as punishment for your crime would be a cruel and unusual punishment.
After all, the 13th was adopted after the 8th so if these were cruel and
unusual punishments the 8th could no longer be a basis for denying such
a sentence because the 13th would have changed, altered, modified and or
eliminated such restrictions on these two forms of punishment.
What makes you think 13A has anything to do with whether a particular
punishment for a particular crime is cruel and unusual?
It doesn't matter since it clearly makes it legal (constitutional) in
the separate case of a person duly convicted of a crime.
Not necessarily. Not if in a particular case a sentence of slavery would
be cruel and unusual punishment.
Sorry. 13th Amendment would supersede the 8th Amendment if either slavery or
involuntary servitude were 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-24 05:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment
which has been interpreted such that the government
cannot take your life without a very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific
cases, I would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that
the right to life has been defined and is enforced by
the law....it's just speculation.> Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Then it's a good thing that neither involuntary servitude or enslavement
as punishment for your crime would be a cruel and unusual punishment.
After all, the 13th was adopted after the 8th so if these were cruel and
unusual punishments the 8th could no longer be a basis for denying such
a sentence because the 13th would have changed, altered, modified and or
eliminated such restrictions on these two forms of punishment.
What makes you think 13A has anything to do with whether a particular
punishment for a particular crime is cruel and unusual?
It doesn't matter since it clearly makes it legal (constitutional) in
the separate case of a person duly convicted of a crime.
Not necessarily. Not if in a particular case a sentence of slavery
would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Sorry. 13th Amendment would supersede the 8th Amendment if either
slavery or involuntary servitude were 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
The thirteenth amendment doesn't allow slavery, scooter; only
involuntary servitude.
Just Wondering
2017-01-24 08:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment
which has been interpreted such that the government
cannot take your life without a very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific
cases, I would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that
the right to life has been defined and is enforced by
the law....it's just speculation.> Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Then it's a good thing that neither involuntary servitude or enslavement
as punishment for your crime would be a cruel and unusual punishment.
After all, the 13th was adopted after the 8th so if these were cruel and
unusual punishments the 8th could no longer be a basis for denying such
a sentence because the 13th would have changed, altered, modified and or
eliminated such restrictions on these two forms of punishment.
What makes you think 13A has anything to do with whether a particular
punishment for a particular crime is cruel and unusual?
It doesn't matter since it clearly makes it legal (constitutional) in
the separate case of a person duly convicted of a crime.
Not necessarily. Not if in a particular case a sentence of slavery
would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Sorry. 13th Amendment would supersede the 8th Amendment if either
slavery or involuntary servitude were 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
Please explain what leads you to such a preposterous opinion.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-24 15:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment
which has been interpreted such that the government
cannot take your life without a very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific
cases, I would conclude there is a right to life codified in
the
law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that
the right to life has been defined and is enforced by
the law....it's just speculation.> Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Then it's a good thing that neither involuntary servitude or enslavement
as punishment for your crime would be a cruel and unusual punishment.
After all, the 13th was adopted after the 8th so if these were cruel and
unusual punishments the 8th could no longer be a basis for denying such
a sentence because the 13th would have changed, altered, modified and or
eliminated such restrictions on these two forms of punishment.
What makes you think 13A has anything to do with whether a particular
punishment for a particular crime is cruel and unusual?
It doesn't matter since it clearly makes it legal (constitutional) in
the separate case of a person duly convicted of a crime.
Not necessarily. Not if in a particular case a sentence of slavery
would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Sorry. 13th Amendment would supersede the 8th Amendment if either
slavery or involuntary servitude were 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
Please explain what leads you to such a preposterous opinion.
Mulishness.

He stubbornly insists the thirteenth amendment allows slavery - the
ownership of a human being - when it clearly does not. It allows
involuntary servitude, i.e. forced labor, for duly convicted prisoners.
They are not slaves. The state doesn't own them.
Scout
2017-01-25 05:54:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment
which has been interpreted such that the government
cannot take your life without a very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific
cases, I would conclude there is a right to life codified in
the
law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that
the right to life has been defined and is enforced by
the law....it's just speculation.> Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Then it's a good thing that neither involuntary servitude or enslavement
as punishment for your crime would be a cruel and unusual punishment.
After all, the 13th was adopted after the 8th so if these were cruel and
unusual punishments the 8th could no longer be a basis for denying such
a sentence because the 13th would have changed, altered, modified and or
eliminated such restrictions on these two forms of punishment.
What makes you think 13A has anything to do with whether a particular
punishment for a particular crime is cruel and unusual?
It doesn't matter since it clearly makes it legal (constitutional) in
the separate case of a person duly convicted of a crime.
Not necessarily. Not if in a particular case a sentence of slavery
would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Sorry. 13th Amendment would supersede the 8th Amendment if either
slavery or involuntary servitude were 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
Please explain what leads you to such a preposterous opinion.
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter, modify, negate,
and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in conflict with the language
within the later Amendment.

If slavery or involuntary servitude were "cruel and unusual punishment' then
it would no longer matter since per the 13th either could be imposed as a
punishment for crime.

Otherwise, why are you drinking alcohol?

If there is any conflict between what the 13th Amendment allows and what the
8th would prohibit, then the 13th would prevail since it supersedes all that
which went before it.
Bill Flett
2017-01-25 06:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment
which has been interpreted such that the government
cannot take your life without a very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific
cases, I would conclude there is a right to life codified
in the
law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that
the right to life has been defined and is enforced by
the law....it's just speculation.> Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Then it's a good thing that neither involuntary servitude or enslavement
as punishment for your crime would be a cruel and unusual punishment.
After all, the 13th was adopted after the 8th so if these were cruel and
unusual punishments the 8th could no longer be a basis for denying such
a sentence because the 13th would have changed, altered, modified and or
eliminated such restrictions on these two forms of punishment.
What makes you think 13A has anything to do with whether a particular
punishment for a particular crime is cruel and unusual?
It doesn't matter since it clearly makes it legal (constitutional) in
the separate case of a person duly convicted of a crime.
Not necessarily. Not if in a particular case a sentence of slavery
would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Sorry. 13th Amendment would supersede the 8th Amendment if either
slavery or involuntary servitude were 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
Please explain what leads you to such a preposterous opinion.
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter, modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in conflict with
the language within the later Amendment.
Bullshit.

I was thinking perhaps scooter was on another seven-month "vacation" -
he's been scarce the last couple of days.
Scout
2017-01-25 07:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment
which has been interpreted such that the government
cannot take your life without a very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific
cases, I would conclude there is a right to life codified
in the
law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that
the right to life has been defined and is enforced by
the law....it's just speculation.> Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death
penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't
developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Then it's a good thing that neither involuntary servitude or enslavement
as punishment for your crime would be a cruel and unusual punishment.
After all, the 13th was adopted after the 8th so if these were cruel and
unusual punishments the 8th could no longer be a basis for denying such
a sentence because the 13th would have changed, altered, modified and or
eliminated such restrictions on these two forms of punishment.
What makes you think 13A has anything to do with whether a particular
punishment for a particular crime is cruel and unusual?
It doesn't matter since it clearly makes it legal (constitutional) in
the separate case of a person duly convicted of a crime.
Not necessarily. Not if in a particular case a sentence of slavery
would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Sorry. 13th Amendment would supersede the 8th Amendment if either
slavery or involuntary servitude were 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
Please explain what leads you to such a preposterous opinion.
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter, modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in conflict with
the language within the later Amendment.
Bullshit.
OK.....why is it legal to buy and drink alcohol?

Indeed the very purpose of any Amendment is to change what exists to
whatever conditions the new Amendment sets.
Bill Flett
2017-01-25 16:37:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment
which has been interpreted such that the government
cannot take your life without a very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific
cases, I would conclude there is a right to life codified
in the
law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that
the right to life has been defined and is enforced by
the law....it's just speculation.> Right?
Perhaps to a point because states haven't instituted the death
penalty
for things like parking violations, so the case law isn't
developed as
to what crimes qualify as capital offenses.
There is developed case law about what is cruel and unusual
punishment,
which the 8th Amendment prohibits. The death penalty for infractions
and misdemeanors would be prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't ignore the constitution....
I don't.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
and make Liberal laws.
Since I'm not a legislator, I don't make laws.
But the Eighth Amendment does exist, and it does prohibit cruel and
unusual punishment, and courts are charged with applying the Eighth
Amendment to claims that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.
Then it's a good thing that neither involuntary servitude or enslavement
as punishment for your crime would be a cruel and unusual punishment.
After all, the 13th was adopted after the 8th so if these were cruel and
unusual punishments the 8th could no longer be a basis for denying such
a sentence because the 13th would have changed, altered, modified and or
eliminated such restrictions on these two forms of punishment.
What makes you think 13A has anything to do with whether a particular
punishment for a particular crime is cruel and unusual?
It doesn't matter since it clearly makes it legal
(constitutional) in
the separate case of a person duly convicted of a crime.
Not necessarily. Not if in a particular case a sentence of slavery
would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Sorry. 13th Amendment would supersede the 8th Amendment if either
slavery or involuntary servitude were 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
Please explain what leads you to such a preposterous opinion.
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter, modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in conflict with
the language within the later Amendment.
Bullshit.
OK.....why is it legal to buy and drink alcohol?
Because the 21st explicitly repealed the 18th, of course. Heck, even
elementary school civics students can get that one. The 13th amendment
has no connection whatever to the 8th.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-25 16:56:12 UTC
Permalink
{snip}
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Scout
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Scout
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter, modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in conflict with
the language within the later Amendment.
Bullshit.
OK.....why is it legal to buy and drink alcohol?
Because the 21st explicitly repealed the 18th, of course. Heck, even
elementary school civics students can get that one. The 13th amendment
has no connection whatever to the 8th.
Under the assumption that the 13th does not permit at least one crime to
be punished with chattel slavery (*), then that one punishment for that
one crime must not have been thought of as "cruel and unusual" in 1868.
On the other hand, that one punishment for that one crime may be so
limited that for all practical purposes the 13th has no connection to
the 8th. It is also possible that the punishment is now considered
"cruel and unusual" even though in 1868 it was not.

(*) We know you think 13th only provides for involuntary servitude as
punishment, but that is not settled law.
Camarillo Brillo
2017-01-25 17:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
that is not settled law.
NO ONE FUCKING CARES, FAGGOT!
Just Wondering
2017-01-25 06:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Just Wondering
What makes you think 13A has anything to do with whether a particular
punishment for a particular crime is cruel and unusual?
It doesn't matter since it clearly makes it legal (constitutional) in
the separate case of a person duly convicted of a crime.
Not necessarily. Not if in a particular case a sentence of slavery
would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Sorry. 13th Amendment would supersede the 8th Amendment if either
slavery or involuntary servitude were 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
Please explain what leads you to such a preposterous opinion.
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter, modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in conflict with
the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Post by Scout
If there is any conflict between what the 13th Amendment allows and what
the 8th would prohibit, then the 13th would prevail since it supersedes
all that which went before it.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A. It's no different than reconciling 5A
with 8A. 5A says no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law. And due process has been construed by the
courts to mean notice and an opportunity to be heard. That doesn't mean
a legislature can impose the death penalty for all crimes. For example,
it would be cruel and unusual punishment (forbidden by 8a) to give
someone the gas chamber (5A) for public urination. Similarly, 13A
allows certain criminal punishments, while 8A would say those
punishments would be cruel and unusual in a particular instance. If
things worked your way, a state could sell you into slavery as
punishment for the crime of jaywalking. 8A would not allow that result
because it would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Scout
2017-01-25 07:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Just Wondering
What makes you think 13A has anything to do with whether a particular
punishment for a particular crime is cruel and unusual?
It doesn't matter since it clearly makes it legal (constitutional) in
the separate case of a person duly convicted of a crime.
Not necessarily. Not if in a particular case a sentence of slavery
would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Sorry. 13th Amendment would supersede the 8th Amendment if either
slavery or involuntary servitude were 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
Please explain what leads you to such a preposterous opinion.
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter, modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in conflict with
the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are automatically
'cruel and unusual punishments'.

Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-25 16:00:33 UTC
Permalink
{snip}
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter, modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in conflict with
the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
Thus no conflict but if there were, then the 13th would prevail.
If the only time that chattel slavery weren't cruel and unusual
punishment is when the crime is torture and mass-murder of toddlers,
then for all practical purposes a sentence of chattel slavery would
comply with the 13th and yet be unconstitutional under the 8th.
Bill Flett
2017-01-25 16:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Just Wondering
What makes you think 13A has anything to do with whether a particular
punishment for a particular crime is cruel and unusual?
It doesn't matter since it clearly makes it legal
(constitutional) in
the separate case of a person duly convicted of a crime.
Not necessarily. Not if in a particular case a sentence of slavery
would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Sorry. 13th Amendment would supersede the 8th Amendment if either
slavery or involuntary servitude were 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
Please explain what leads you to such a preposterous opinion.
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter, modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in conflict with
the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
The 13th amendment does not permit slavery - period. It permits
involuntary servitude upon conviction of certain crimes.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-25 17:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Flett
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Just Wondering
What makes you think 13A has anything to do with whether a particular
punishment for a particular crime is cruel and unusual?
It doesn't matter since it clearly makes it legal
(constitutional) in
the separate case of a person duly convicted of a crime.
Not necessarily. Not if in a particular case a sentence of slavery
would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Sorry. 13th Amendment would supersede the 8th Amendment if either
slavery or involuntary servitude were 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
Please explain what leads you to such a preposterous opinion.
All later Amendments, by their very nature, change, alter, modify,
negate, and/or eliminate any conditions which would be in conflict with
the language within the later Amendment.
Nothing in 13A conflicts with 8A.
Agreed, because neither slavery nor involuntary servitude are
automatically 'cruel and unusual punishments'.
The 13th amendment does not permit slavery - period. It permits
involuntary servitude upon conviction of certain crimes.
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.

*Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude*

*except as a punishment for crime*

It lumps Slavery and involuntary servitude together.

And the "exception" is for both of them lumped together.


The exception is between two commas. That could be replaced with it
being between two quotation marks.

"except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted"

Meaning an outside or personal complete thought.... and it's still the
same meaning as using commas.
--
That's Karma
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 22:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.

I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical definition. It
means something more nuanced. I have supplied many links to sites at
which people argue about whether or not a particular president achieved
a "mandate." If scooter's narrow dictionary definition were all that
was needed, then there would never be any argument, and every president
could be said to have a mandate, rendering the term useless. The
irrefutable fact that people do argue over it is proof that scooter is
wrong.
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition". Dictionaries can and do offer
more nuanced meanings.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 23:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
You're the one who argues that dictionaries are "of no help"
in this type of discussion". But dictionaries can be used to
support the very type of "more nuanced" meaning you advocate,
so you irrationally reject a source of support for your position.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 23:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical
definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
You're the one who argues that dictionaries are "of no help"
in this type of discussion".
And I'm right, as the "debate" <chuckle> has borne out.
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical
definition. It means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
You're the one who argues that dictionaries are "of no help"
in this type of discussion".
And I'm right, as the "debate" <chuckle> has borne out.
Ask me if I care whether you're right or wrong.
Q: Do I care?
A: No.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 23:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical
definition. It means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
You're the one who argues that dictionaries are "of no help"
in this type of discussion".
And I'm right, as the "debate" <chuckle> has borne out.
Ask me if I care whether you're right or wrong.
Q: Do I care?
A: No.
Yeah, you do.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical
definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
You're the one who argues that dictionaries are "of no help"
in this type of discussion".
And I'm right, as the "debate" <chuckle> has borne out.
No, several people have corrected you. Proven their position with cites.
Your response as been that of foot stomping and yelling that it aint so.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 03:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical
definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
You're the one who argues that dictionaries are "of no help"
in this type of discussion".
And I'm right, as the "debate" <chuckle> has borne out.
No,
Yes.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/views-you-can-use/articles/2016-11-09/does-president-elect-donald-trump-have-a-mandate
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/views-you-can-use/articles/2016-11-09/does-president-elect-donald-trump-have-a-mandate
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/17/13658374/trump-mandate-history-presidential-politics
Scout
2017-01-23 03:48:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical
definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
You're the one who argues that dictionaries are "of no help"
in this type of discussion".
And I'm right, as the "debate" <chuckle> has borne out.
No,
Yes.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/views-you-can-use/articles/2016-11-09/does-president-elect-donald-trump-have-a-mandate
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/views-you-can-use/articles/2016-11-09/does-president-elect-donald-trump-have-a-mandate
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/17/13658374/trump-mandate-history-presidential-politics
So you found two illiterate reporters. BFD.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 04:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
You're the one who argues that dictionaries are "of no help"
in this type of discussion".
And I'm right, as the "debate" <chuckle> has borne out.
No,
Yes.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/views-you-can-use/articles/2016-11-09/does-president-elect-donald-trump-have-a-mandate
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/views-you-can-use/articles/2016-11-09/does-president-elect-donald-trump-have-a-mandate
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/17/13658374/trump-mandate-history-presidential-politics
So you found
sources that show your silly tunnel-vision "dictionary definition" is
inadequate, and so useless. Yes.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
How? By quoting the applicable definition directly from the dictionary?

I've invited you numerous times to provide a cite to an authoritative
dictionary setting forth the definition you assert is valid.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 02:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical
definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
How?
By ignoring contemporary American political discourse, to your peril.
Scout
2017-01-23 03:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical
definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
How?
By ignoring contemporary American political discourse, to your peril.
I can't help it if some reporters are illiterates.

Doesn't make their usage correct, proper or accepted.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 04:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
I have proved conclusively that mandate, in the political context at
issue here, is not limited to scooter's narrow technical
definition. It
means something more nuanced.
But contrary to your implication, dictionaries do not limit the term "to
scooter's narrow technical definition".
scooter himself did that.
How?
By ignoring contemporary American political discourse, to your peril.
I can't help it if
You got it wrong, scooter.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
When Rudy is just making it up as he goes along, any sort of facts are of no
help to him.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 02:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
When Rudy is just making it up as he goes along,
Never. I never do that.
duke
2017-01-24 18:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
When Rudy is just making it up as he goes along,
Never. I never do that.
Rud, either you or your shadoo do it.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-24 18:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
When Rudy is just making it up as he goes along,
Never. I never do that.
Rud, either you or your shadoo
No, Douche. I don't make it up as I go along. That's what you and that
convicted child-molester buddy of yours do.
Post by duke
the doucher, smug fat prick and congenital liar
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect flim-flam to sucker the idiots."
Pop Paul VI, Rapist
*****
duke
2017-01-25 17:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by duke
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
When Rudy is just making it up as he goes along,
Never. I never do that.
Rud, either you or your shadoo
No, Douche. I don't make it up as I go along. That's what you and that
convicted child-molester buddy of yours do.
Neither you nor your shadoo is my buddy.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-25 17:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by duke
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Well, maybe not if you follow the teachings of Humpty Dumpty.
No, I mean they're of no help in this type of discussion.
When Rudy is just making it up as he goes along,
Never. I never do that.
Rud, either you or your shadoo
No, Douche. I don't make it up as I go along. That's what you and that
convicted child-molester buddy of yours do.
Neither you nor your shadoo is my buddy.
No shadow, Douche, and I was talking about your child-molester fellow
Cat-lick.
Post by duke
the doucher, smug fat prick and congenital liar
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect flim-flam to sucker the idiots."
Pop Paul VI, Rapist
*****
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 22:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
except when they don't have any utility to the point being discussed.
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
except when they don't have any utility to the point being discussed.
Which happens when the person on the other side of the discussion
is an acolyte of the Humpty-Dumpty school of etymology.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 23:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
except when they don't have any utility to the point being discussed.
Which happens when
a plodder like scooter doesn't like his "boy" being delegitimized.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
except when they don't have any utility to the point being discussed.
Which happens when
a plodder like scooter doesn't like his "boy" being delegitimized.
Nothing you say can or could 'delegitimize' him.

Rather my issues with you have to do with your lack of honesty, proof and
facts.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 02:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
except when they don't have any utility to the point being discussed.
Which happens when
a plodder like scooter doesn't like his "boy" being delegitimized.
Nothing you say can or could 'delegitimize' him.
Nonsense.
Scout
2017-01-23 03:45:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
except when they don't have any utility to the point being discussed.
Which happens when
a plodder like scooter doesn't like his "boy" being delegitimized.
Nothing you say can or could 'delegitimize' him.
Nonsense.
What you say is nonsense.

Happy to see you can finally admit it.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 04:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
except when they don't have any utility to the point being discussed.
Which happens when
a plodder like scooter doesn't like his "boy" being delegitimized.
Nothing you say can or could 'delegitimize' him.
Nonsense.
What you say is nonsense.
No.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
except when they don't have any utility to the point being discussed.
Like when you're talking to an illiterate person such as yourself?
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 02:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Literate people accept the utility of dictionaries
except when they don't have any utility to the point being discussed.
Like when you're talking to an illiterate person such as
you? Yes.
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 22:38:09 UTC
Permalink
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is whether it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Scout
2017-01-23 01:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is whether it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the time
to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make chattel
slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow racial
discrimination?

Just because SCOTUS says it, doesn't make it so.

The question you should always ask yourself is "What does the Constitution
have to say about it?"

After all, it's not that hard to read and understand the Constitution.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 02:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is whether it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow racial
discrimination?
Cite.
Scout
2017-01-23 03:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is whether it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow racial
discrimination?
Cite.
Isn't it enough that I KNOW IT?

Really Rudy, you shouldn't ask of others that which you refuse to do
yourself.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 04:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is whether it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow racial
discrimination?
Cite.
Isn't it enough that I KNOW IT?
You *don't* know it.
Scout
2017-01-23 04:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is whether it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow racial
discrimination?
Cite.
Isn't it enough that I KNOW IT?
You *don't* know it.
Sure I do. Doesn't matter how I know it. It's enough that I know it.

Right?

I mean isn't that how your rhetoric goes?

If assertions of knowledge is enough to support your claims, then they
should be perfectly adequate for you to accept mine.

After all, I'm right and I know it.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 05:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is whether it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow racial
discrimination?
Cite.
Isn't it enough that I KNOW IT?
You *don't* know it.
Sure I do.
No. You don't know it. It's not a fact.
Scout
2017-01-23 06:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is whether it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow racial
discrimination?
Cite.
Isn't it enough that I KNOW IT?
You *don't* know it.
Sure I do.
No. You don't know it. It's not a fact.
Ah, but it is a fact. I know it is. According to you that's all that's
necessary.

Of course, if I wanted I could actually PROVE it, but hardly necessary given
your standards.
Scout
2017-01-23 06:40:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is
whether
it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow racial
discrimination?
Cite.
Isn't it enough that I KNOW IT?
You *don't* know it.
Sure I do.
No. You don't know it. It's not a fact.
Ah, but it is a fact. I know it is. According to you that's all that's
necessary.
Of course, if I wanted I could actually PROVE it, but hardly necessary
given your standards.
Well since Rudy is now in the bit bucket, let it never be said I didn't
prove my claims.

Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson established the 'legality' of
racial discrimination.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

See, Rudy, that's how you prove your clams are factual. By actually
presenting proof that what you know is true and factual.

Anyway, I've roasted you long enough. High time to let you now stew in your
own juices.
Kadaitcha Man
2017-01-23 08:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Scout, truly thou art damned, like an ill-roasted egg, all on one
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and
firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is
whether
it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow racial
discrimination?
Cite.
Isn't it enough that I KNOW IT?
You *don't* know it.
Sure I do.
No. You don't know it. It's not a fact.
Ah, but it is a fact. I know it is. According to you that's all that's
necessary.
Of course, if I wanted I could actually PROVE it, but hardly necessary
given your standards.
Well since Rudy is now in the bit bucket, let it never be said I didn't
prove my claims.
Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson established the 'legality'
of racial discrimination.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal
See, Rudy, that's how you prove your clams are factual. By actually
presenting proof that what you know is true and factual.
Anyway, I've roasted you long enough. High time to let you now stew in
your own juices.
You're a fucking coward, replying from behind the safety of your mummy's
skirt^h^h killfile. A Christopher A Lee type of coward.
--
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
fucking posts, read this fucking article, you fucking dipshit whiner:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 15:57:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and
firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is
whether
it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow
racialdiscrimination?
Cite.
Isn't it enough that I KNOW IT?
You *don't* know it.
Sure I do.
No. You don't know it. It's not a fact.
Ah, but it is a fact. I know it is. According to you that's all that's
necessary.
Of course, if I wanted I could actually PROVE it, but hardly necessary
given your standards.
Well since Rudy is now in the bit bucket,
Since scooter ran away in humiliating defeat...
Post by Scout
let it never be said I didn'tprove my claims.
You didn't prove your claims.
Post by Scout
Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson established the 'legality'
of racial discrimination.
*NOT* by an interpretation of the 13th amendment.

That it does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, which
abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime, is too clear for argument.

In no way did the court "interpret" the thirteenth amendment to say it
"allowed" discrimination on the basis of race. They didn't "interpret"
it at all.

Anyway, thanks for the tip, because now that I read Plessy v Ferguson
again, I see that it further refutes your claim that the thirteenth
amendment permits slavery for prisoners. No, it does not:

Slavery implies involuntary servitude -- a state of bondage; the
ownership of mankind as a chattel, or at least the control of the
labor and services of one man for the benefit of another, *and* the
absence of a legal right to the disposal of his own person, property
and services.

But imprisonment does *not* contain the "and" - the fact of being a
prisoner does not mean the absence of a legal right held by the prisoner
to the disposal of his person or property. There are restrictions on
what property the prisoner may have while in prison, but he may have
*some* property, and provided the property he is permitted to have isn't
considered contraband for another prisoner, he may give or sell it -
dispose of it - to another prisoner, or he may just discard it. If he
legally owns property outside of prison, say a dwelling or vehicle, he
may dispose of it by selling or giving it to someone. A slave may not
do that.

The prisoner also may dispose of his person. If he dies, his corpse
will be disposed of as he directed, not as the prison warden decides.
The prisoner's corpse will be released to his family or friends if he
has any, and disposed of as he wished; the warden doesn't get to decide
to donate it for scientific research instead.

Poor dumb cowardly scooter - he left under such a dark cloud!
Ted
2017-01-24 00:32:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of
life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is
whether
it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow
racialdiscrimination?
Cite.
Isn't it enough that I KNOW IT?
You *don't* know it.
Sure I do.
No. You don't know it. It's not a fact.
Ah, but it is a fact. I know it is. According to you that's all that's
necessary.
Of course, if I wanted I could actually PROVE it, but hardly necessary
given your standards.
Well since Rudy is now in the bit bucket,
Since scooter ran away in humiliating defeat...
Post by Scout
let it never be said I didn'tprove my claims.
You didn't prove your claims.
Post by Scout
Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson established the 'legality'
of racial discrimination.
*NOT* by an interpretation of the 13th amendment.
That it does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, which
abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime, is too clear for argument.
In no way did the court "interpret" the thirteenth amendment to say it
"allowed" discrimination on the basis of race. They didn't "interpret" it at all.
Anyway, thanks for the tip, because now that I read Plessy v Ferguson
again, I see that it further refutes your claim that the thirteenth
Slavery implies involuntary servitude -- a state of bondage; the
ownership of mankind as a chattel, or at least the control of the
labor and services of one man for the benefit of another, *and* the
absence of a legal right to the disposal of his own person, property
and services.
But imprisonment does *not* contain the "and" - the fact of being a
prisoner does not mean the absence of a legal right held by the prisoner
to the disposal of his person or property. There are restrictions on
what property the prisoner may have while in prison, but he may have
*some* property, and provided the property he is permitted to have isn't
considered contraband for another prisoner, he may give or sell it -
dispose of it - to another prisoner, or he may just discard it. If he
legally owns property outside of prison, say a dwelling or vehicle, he
may dispose of it by selling or giving it to someone. A slave may not do that.
The prisoner also may dispose of his person. If he dies, his corpse will
be disposed of as he directed, not as the prison warden decides. The
prisoner's corpse will be released to his family or friends if he has
any, and disposed of as he wished; the warden doesn't get to decide to
donate it for scientific research instead.
Poor dumb cowardly scooter - he left under such a dark cloud!
What a silly little pussy. LMAO. :)
--
"This troll is one of the dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and
also the most arrogant septic idiots one can come across."
Loading Image...
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-24 01:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and
firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to
survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of
life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal
sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is
whether
it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow
racialdiscrimination?
Cite.
Isn't it enough that I KNOW IT?
You *don't* know it.
Sure I do.
No. You don't know it. It's not a fact.
Ah, but it is a fact. I know it is. According to you that's all that's
necessary.
Of course, if I wanted I could actually PROVE it, but hardly necessary
given your standards.
Well since Rudy is now in the bit bucket,
Since scooter ran away in humiliating defeat...
Post by Scout
let it never be said I didn'tprove my claims.
You didn't prove your claims.
Post by Scout
Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson established the 'legality'
of racial discrimination.
*NOT* by an interpretation of the 13th amendment.
That it does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, which
abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime, is too clear for argument.
In no way did the court "interpret" the thirteenth amendment to say it
"allowed" discrimination on the basis of race. They didn't "interpret" it at all.
Anyway, thanks for the tip, because now that I read Plessy v Ferguson
again, I see that it further refutes your claim that the thirteenth
Slavery implies involuntary servitude -- a state of bondage; the
ownership of mankind as a chattel, or at least the control of the
labor and services of one man for the benefit of another, *and* the
absence of a legal right to the disposal of his own person, property
and services.
But imprisonment does *not* contain the "and" - the fact of being a
prisoner does not mean the absence of a legal right held by the prisoner
to the disposal of his person or property. There are restrictions on
what property the prisoner may have while in prison, but he may have
*some* property, and provided the property he is permitted to have isn't
considered contraband for another prisoner, he may give or sell it -
dispose of it - to another prisoner, or he may just discard it. If he
legally owns property outside of prison, say a dwelling or vehicle, he
may dispose of it by selling or giving it to someone. A slave may not do that.
The prisoner also may dispose of his person. If he dies, his corpse will
be disposed of as he directed, not as the prison warden decides. The
prisoner's corpse will be released to his family or friends if he has
any, and disposed of as he wished; the warden doesn't get to decide to
donate it for scientific research instead.
Poor dumb cowardly scooter - he left under such a dark cloud!
What a silly little pussy. LMAO. :)
He is. I'm actually surprised he lasted as long as he did.
Ted
2017-01-24 01:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and
firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to
survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of
life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal
sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is
whether
it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow
racialdiscrimination?
Cite.
Isn't it enough that I KNOW IT?
You *don't* know it.
Sure I do.
No. You don't know it. It's not a fact.
Ah, but it is a fact. I know it is. According to you that's all that's
necessary.
Of course, if I wanted I could actually PROVE it, but hardly necessary
given your standards.
Well since Rudy is now in the bit bucket,
Since scooter ran away in humiliating defeat...
Post by Scout
let it never be said I didn'tprove my claims.
You didn't prove your claims.
Post by Scout
Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson established the 'legality'
of racial discrimination.
*NOT* by an interpretation of the 13th amendment.
That it does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, which
abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime, is too clear for argument.
In no way did the court "interpret" the thirteenth amendment to say it
"allowed" discrimination on the basis of race. They didn't "interpret" it at all.
Anyway, thanks for the tip, because now that I read Plessy v Ferguson
again, I see that it further refutes your claim that the thirteenth
Slavery implies involuntary servitude -- a state of bondage; the
ownership of mankind as a chattel, or at least the control of the
labor and services of one man for the benefit of another, *and* the
absence of a legal right to the disposal of his own person, property
and services.
But imprisonment does *not* contain the "and" - the fact of being a
prisoner does not mean the absence of a legal right held by the prisoner
to the disposal of his person or property. There are restrictions on
what property the prisoner may have while in prison, but he may have
*some* property, and provided the property he is permitted to have isn't
considered contraband for another prisoner, he may give or sell it -
dispose of it - to another prisoner, or he may just discard it. If he
legally owns property outside of prison, say a dwelling or vehicle, he
may dispose of it by selling or giving it to someone. A slave may not do that.
The prisoner also may dispose of his person. If he dies, his corpse will
be disposed of as he directed, not as the prison warden decides. The
prisoner's corpse will be released to his family or friends if he has
any, and disposed of as he wished; the warden doesn't get to decide to
donate it for scientific research instead.
Poor dumb cowardly scooter - he left under such a dark cloud!
What a silly little pussy. LMAO. :)
He is. I'm actually surprised he lasted as long as he did.
LOL. It took him awhile before he realized how badly you were handing him
his ass.
--
"This troll is one of the dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and
also the most arrogant septic idiots one can come across."
http://kingofwallpapers.com/ted/ted-005.jpg
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-24 02:55:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and
firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to
survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of
life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the
13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal
sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is
whether
it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not
worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to
make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow
racialdiscrimination?
Cite.
Isn't it enough that I KNOW IT?
You *don't* know it.
Sure I do.
No. You don't know it. It's not a fact.
Ah, but it is a fact. I know it is. According to you that's all that's
necessary.
Of course, if I wanted I could actually PROVE it, but hardly necessary
given your standards.
Well since Rudy is now in the bit bucket,
Since scooter ran away in humiliating defeat...
Post by Scout
let it never be said I didn'tprove my claims.
You didn't prove your claims.
Post by Scout
Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson established the 'legality'
of racial discrimination.
*NOT* by an interpretation of the 13th amendment.
That it does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, which
abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime, is too clear for argument.
In no way did the court "interpret" the thirteenth amendment to say it
"allowed" discrimination on the basis of race. They didn't "interpret" it at all.
Anyway, thanks for the tip, because now that I read Plessy v Ferguson
again, I see that it further refutes your claim that the thirteenth
Slavery implies involuntary servitude -- a state of bondage; the
ownership of mankind as a chattel, or at least the control of the
labor and services of one man for the benefit of another, *and* the
absence of a legal right to the disposal of his own person, property
and services.
But imprisonment does *not* contain the "and" - the fact of being a
prisoner does not mean the absence of a legal right held by the prisoner
to the disposal of his person or property. There are restrictions on
what property the prisoner may have while in prison, but he may have
*some* property, and provided the property he is permitted to have isn't
considered contraband for another prisoner, he may give or sell it -
dispose of it - to another prisoner, or he may just discard it. If he
legally owns property outside of prison, say a dwelling or vehicle, he
may dispose of it by selling or giving it to someone. A slave may not do that.
The prisoner also may dispose of his person. If he dies, his corpse will
be disposed of as he directed, not as the prison warden decides. The
prisoner's corpse will be released to his family or friends if he has
any, and disposed of as he wished; the warden doesn't get to decide to
donate it for scientific research instead.
Poor dumb cowardly scooter - he left under such a dark cloud!
What a silly little pussy. LMAO. :)
He is. I'm actually surprised he lasted as long as he did.
LOL. It took him awhile before he realized how badly you were handing him
his ass.
I think he became "demoralized", just like Sean Spicer. He hasn't
posted anything for the rest of the day.
Ted
2017-01-24 23:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and
firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to
survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of
life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the
13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal
sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is
whether
it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not
worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to
make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow
racialdiscrimination?
Cite.
Isn't it enough that I KNOW IT?
You *don't* know it.
Sure I do.
No. You don't know it. It's not a fact.
Ah, but it is a fact. I know it is. According to you that's all that's
necessary.
Of course, if I wanted I could actually PROVE it, but hardly necessary
given your standards.
Well since Rudy is now in the bit bucket,
Since scooter ran away in humiliating defeat...
Post by Scout
let it never be said I didn'tprove my claims.
You didn't prove your claims.
Post by Scout
Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson established the 'legality'
of racial discrimination.
*NOT* by an interpretation of the 13th amendment.
That it does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, which
abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime, is too clear for argument.
In no way did the court "interpret" the thirteenth amendment to say it
"allowed" discrimination on the basis of race. They didn't "interpret" it at all.
Anyway, thanks for the tip, because now that I read Plessy v Ferguson
again, I see that it further refutes your claim that the thirteenth
Slavery implies involuntary servitude -- a state of bondage; the
ownership of mankind as a chattel, or at least the control of the
labor and services of one man for the benefit of another, *and* the
absence of a legal right to the disposal of his own person, property
and services.
But imprisonment does *not* contain the "and" - the fact of being a
prisoner does not mean the absence of a legal right held by the prisoner
to the disposal of his person or property. There are restrictions on
what property the prisoner may have while in prison, but he may have
*some* property, and provided the property he is permitted to have isn't
considered contraband for another prisoner, he may give or sell it -
dispose of it - to another prisoner, or he may just discard it. If he
legally owns property outside of prison, say a dwelling or vehicle, he
may dispose of it by selling or giving it to someone. A slave may not do that.
The prisoner also may dispose of his person. If he dies, his corpse will
be disposed of as he directed, not as the prison warden decides. The
prisoner's corpse will be released to his family or friends if he has
any, and disposed of as he wished; the warden doesn't get to decide to
donate it for scientific research instead.
Poor dumb cowardly scooter - he left under such a dark cloud!
What a silly little pussy. LMAO. :)
He is. I'm actually surprised he lasted as long as he did.
LOL. It took him awhile before he realized how badly you were handing him
his ass.
I think he became "demoralized", just like Sean Spicer. He hasn't posted
anything for the rest of the day.
LOL. He's probably still hiding.
--
"This troll is one of the dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and
also the most arrogant septic idiots one can come across."
http://kingofwallpapers.com/ted/ted-005.jpg
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 15:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is
whether
it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow
racialdiscrimination?
Cite.
Isn't it enough that I KNOW IT?
You *don't* know it.
Sure I do.
No. You don't know it. It's not a fact.
Ah, but it is a fact.
Isn't.
Just Wondering
2017-01-23 08:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is whether it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow racial
discrimination?
Just because SCOTUS says it, doesn't make it so.
The question you should always ask yourself is "What does the
Constitution have to say about it?"
After all, it's not that hard to read and understand the Constitution.
Get one of your state legislators to sponsor a bill imposing slavery to
crime victims or their families as a punishment for rape, murder and
other violent crimes. Let us know how far that gets.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-23 19:54:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is whether it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow racial
discrimination?
Just because SCOTUS says it, doesn't make it so.
The question you should always ask yourself is "What does the
Constitution have to say about it?"
After all, it's not that hard to read and understand the Constitution.
Get one of your state legislators to sponsor a bill imposing slavery to
crime victims or their families as a punishment for rape, murder and
other violent crimes. Let us know how far that gets.
It's called community service and they all, even some rapists are
required to repay victims and/or the community for damages other than
dollar amounts such as working with other rapists or speaking out.
Murder as in Drunk driving can get you community service.

Judges sentence people to wild off the wall things that are slavery.

[""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Noise Ordinance Violators Forced to
Listen to Barry Manilow
Fort Lupton, Colorado: In the small town of Fort Lupton, Judge Paul
Sacco gives people who blast their car stereos too loud a taste of their
own medicine by forcing them to listen to blaring music for an hour. The
music is designed to be as grating as possible to the offenders, whose
music of choice tends to be hip-hop and rock ‘n roll: Barry Manilow,
Dolly Parton, classical music, nursery rhymes, TV theme songs and maybe
a show tune or two. No word on what happens if someone is arrested for
blasting “Copacabana.”

Men Sentenced to Dress in Drag
Coshocton, Ohio: Judge David Hostetler gave Jason Householder, 23, and
John Stockum, 21, two options of punishment for throwing beer bottles at
a woman in a car: 60 days in jail or an hour of walking through downtown
Coshocton in dresses, wigs and makeup. They chose the dresses. The
punishment was meant to teach the young men to respect women, but it may
have just taught them how to walk in heels.

RichardThompson.jpgJudge Rules Sex Offender Is Too Short for Prison
Sidney, Nebraska: Convicted child molester Richard W. Thompson, 50, was
given 10 years’ probation in lieu of prison time when Judge Kristine
Cecava declared that the 5-foot-1 man’s stature, combined with the
nature of his crime, would put him in danger in jail. Wait, you mean
jail is dangerous?

Man Forbidden to Have a Girlfriend
Ontario, Canada: Arrested for attacking his ex-girlfriend, Steven
Cranley, 24, was declared by doctors to have difficulty coping with
rejection and was thus ordered by Judge Rhys Morgan to refrain from “a
romantic relationship of an intimate nature with a female person” for
three years. During that time, he received counseling, but half-way
through his sentence, he again assaulted a female acquaintance (a
different one) and was sentenced to two years in jail.

RobertRestaino.jpgJudge Arrests Entire Courtroom
Niagara Falls, New York: Later claiming to have been under stress in his
personal life, Judge Robert Restaino went ballistic one day in 2005 when
he heard a cell phone ring in his courtroom. When the offender didn’t
step forward to confess, Restaino pulled the equivalent of a grade
school teacher making the class put their heads on their desks and
arrested the entire courtroom. Fourty-six people were thrown in jail.
Thirty-two of them posted bail and the rest were shackled and bused to
another facility. Restaino ordered them released later that day, but the
damage had been done; the judge was relieved of his position.

*Judge Makes Slumlord Live in His Own Building*
Cleveland, Ohio: In what sounds like something out of a Joe Pesci movie,
landlord Nicholas Dionisopoulos, who owned over 40 run-down properties
in Cleveland, was sentenced to six months’ house arrest in one of the
units, where he presumably experienced a series of wacky pratfalls
before finally realizing the err of his ways — unless Hollywood lied to
us. He was also fined $100,000.

PachinoHill.jpgMan Sentenced to Church
Davenport, Iowa: Running out of patience with longtime criminal Pachino
Hill, 29, Judge Christine Dalton sentenced the man to eight weeks of
church, along with counseling and probation. Within 10 months, he was on
trial again, this time for vehicular manslaughter in relation to a home
invasion — not to mention a his involvement in a separate stabbing.

Six-Year-Old Boy Sentenced to Traffic School
Los Lunas, New Mexico: When a woman was ticketed because her
six-year-old son wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, she expressed her
frustration that the boy refused to stay buckled up and would repeatedly
undo the restraint while she drove. She asked Judge John Sanchez for
help, so he sentenced the grade schooler to traffic school —
specifically, a seatbelt safety class specially designed for the child.

*Man Ordered to Wear “Sex Offender” T-shirt at Work*
Newark, Delaware: Convicted of exposing himself to 10-year-old girl
while on the job, 69-year-old Russell Teeter was sentenced to 60 days in
jail, with the unusual stipulation that upon his release, he must wear a
t-shirt reading “I am a registered sex offender” at work for 22 straight
months. Teeter should consider himself lucky on a couple of counts: 1)
he’s self-employed, running a gardening business with his (delusional?)
wife, and 2) the sentence seems pretty light, considering his 10
indecent exposure convictions since 1976.

*Woman Has to Eat Bread and Water*
Houston, Texas: Convicted of animal neglect that led to the
euthanization of one of her horses, 28-year-old Melissa Dawn Sweeney was
sentenced to 30 days in jail, *the first three with nothing* to *eat*
*but bread and water* — which was “more than her horses got,” according
to Judge Mike Peters. I guess a riding crop would’ve been out of the
question.

rapist.jpgCourt Agrees to Give Rapist Lighter Sentence If Victim Agrees
to Marry Him
New Delhi, India: Pushing forgiveness to the extreme, a New Delhi court
asked a rape victim to consider marrying her attacker because she’d have
few other options due to the stigma of being raped. If she said yes, the
court would actually reduce the man’s sentence — presumably so they
could spend more time together? Thankfully, she refused the offer, and
the rapist was sentenced to life in prison, where he may very well catch
his own case of stigma.

*Drunk Driver Ordered to Carry Photo of Dead Victim*
Butler, Pennsylvania: When Jennifer Langston, 27, was convicted of
driving drunk and causing the accident that killed Glenn Clark and put
his pregnant wife in a coma, she was sentenced to only 30 days in jail
and ordered to carry a photo of Clark so that she could reflect on her
actions. When the picture provided by the victim’s mother turned out to
be that of Clark in his coffin, Langston protested, apparently not
appropriately relieved at her light sentence. However, Judge George
Hancher insisted, and she was forced to carry the photo with her for
five years.



Sentenced three men convicticted of soliciting prostitutes to an
hour on the street dressed as chickens.

Ordered a man who stole a Salvation Army donation kettle to spend a
night homeless.

Made a man who called police officers “pigs” stand on a street
corner with a pig wearing a sign that read “This is not a police officer.”

Made two men who shot paintball guns at a house shoot their own car.

Ordered a couple of teens who vandalized a nativity scene to walk
down the street with a donkey and an apology sign reading “Sorry for the
jackass offense.”

Ordered a woman who abandoned kittens in a park to spend a night in
the woods.

Sentenced a man who killed his dog to dress up like a “safety dog”
and educate elementary schools.

Made a teenager caught stealing adult videos stand outside the store
blindfolded with a sign reading “See no evil.”

Had a woman who stole money from a church spell out an apology in
coins in front of the church, reading “I stole coins from this church
and apologize to each worshipper as they enter the church.”
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""]

*Some of those were damn funny, but still slavery*
--
That's Karma
Just Wondering
2017-01-24 01:44:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
On 1/22/2017 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:>
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
Of course, as you point out, until it's imposed as a criminal sentence,
it's pretty moot. Further I expect it would never be imposed as a
sentence. Yet that isn't the issue at hand. The question is whether it's
technically legal. Per the Constitution, it is.
I'm not going to bother with the research because it's not worth the
time to me, but I read that SCOTUS has interpreted 13A so as to make
chattel slavery illegal even as a punishment for crime.
Would this be the same SCOTUS that interpreted the 13A to allow racial
discrimination?
Just because SCOTUS says it, doesn't make it so.
The question you should always ask yourself is "What does the
Constitution have to say about it?"
After all, it's not that hard to read and understand the Constitution.
Get one of your state legislators to sponsor a bill imposing slavery to
crime victims or their families as a punishment for rape, murder and
other violent crimes. Let us know how far that gets.
It's called community service and they all, even some rapists are
required to repay victims and/or the community for damages other than
dollar amounts such as working with other rapists or speaking out.
Murder as in Drunk driving can get you community service.
Not slavery. Not even close.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Judges sentence people to wild off the wall things that are slavery.
Translation: You're either a troll or incredibly stupid.
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
[""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Noise Ordinance Violators Forced to
Listen to Barry Manilow
Fort Lupton, Colorado: In the small town of Fort Lupton, Judge Paul
Sacco gives people who blast their car stereos too loud a taste of their
own medicine by forcing them to listen to blaring music for an hour. The
music is designed to be as grating as possible to the offenders, whose
music of choice tends to be hip-hop and rock ‘n roll: Barry Manilow,
Dolly Parton, classical music, nursery rhymes, TV theme songs and maybe
a show tune or two. No word on what happens if someone is arrested for
blasting “Copacabana.”
Men Sentenced to Dress in Drag
Coshocton, Ohio: Judge David Hostetler gave Jason Householder, 23, and
John Stockum, 21, two options of punishment for throwing beer bottles at
a woman in a car: 60 days in jail or an hour of walking through downtown
Coshocton in dresses, wigs and makeup. They chose the dresses. The
punishment was meant to teach the young men to respect women, but it may
have just taught them how to walk in heels.
RichardThompson.jpgJudge Rules Sex Offender Is Too Short for Prison
Sidney, Nebraska: Convicted child molester Richard W. Thompson, 50, was
given 10 years’ probation in lieu of prison time when Judge Kristine
Cecava declared that the 5-foot-1 man’s stature, combined with the
nature of his crime, would put him in danger in jail. Wait, you mean
jail is dangerous?
Man Forbidden to Have a Girlfriend
Ontario, Canada: Arrested for attacking his ex-girlfriend, Steven
Cranley, 24, was declared by doctors to have difficulty coping with
rejection and was thus ordered by Judge Rhys Morgan to refrain from “a
romantic relationship of an intimate nature with a female person” for
three years. During that time, he received counseling, but half-way
through his sentence, he again assaulted a female acquaintance (a
different one) and was sentenced to two years in jail.
RobertRestaino.jpgJudge Arrests Entire Courtroom
Niagara Falls, New York: Later claiming to have been under stress in his
personal life, Judge Robert Restaino went ballistic one day in 2005 when
he heard a cell phone ring in his courtroom. When the offender didn’t
step forward to confess, Restaino pulled the equivalent of a grade
school teacher making the class put their heads on their desks and
arrested the entire courtroom. Fourty-six people were thrown in jail.
Thirty-two of them posted bail and the rest were shackled and bused to
another facility. Restaino ordered them released later that day, but the
damage had been done; the judge was relieved of his position.
*Judge Makes Slumlord Live in His Own Building*
Cleveland, Ohio: In what sounds like something out of a Joe Pesci movie,
landlord Nicholas Dionisopoulos, who owned over 40 run-down properties
in Cleveland, was sentenced to six months’ house arrest in one of the
units, where he presumably experienced a series of wacky pratfalls
before finally realizing the err of his ways — unless Hollywood lied to
us. He was also fined $100,000.
PachinoHill.jpgMan Sentenced to Church
Davenport, Iowa: Running out of patience with longtime criminal Pachino
Hill, 29, Judge Christine Dalton sentenced the man to eight weeks of
church, along with counseling and probation. Within 10 months, he was on
trial again, this time for vehicular manslaughter in relation to a home
invasion — not to mention a his involvement in a separate stabbing.
Six-Year-Old Boy Sentenced to Traffic School
Los Lunas, New Mexico: When a woman was ticketed because her
six-year-old son wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, she expressed her
frustration that the boy refused to stay buckled up and would repeatedly
undo the restraint while she drove. She asked Judge John Sanchez for
help, so he sentenced the grade schooler to traffic school —
specifically, a seatbelt safety class specially designed for the child.
*Man Ordered to Wear “Sex Offender” T-shirt at Work*
Newark, Delaware: Convicted of exposing himself to 10-year-old girl
while on the job, 69-year-old Russell Teeter was sentenced to 60 days in
jail, with the unusual stipulation that upon his release, he must wear a
t-shirt reading “I am a registered sex offender” at work for 22 straight
months. Teeter should consider himself lucky on a couple of counts: 1)
he’s self-employed, running a gardening business with his (delusional?)
wife, and 2) the sentence seems pretty light, considering his 10
indecent exposure convictions since 1976.
*Woman Has to Eat Bread and Water*
Houston, Texas: Convicted of animal neglect that led to the
euthanization of one of her horses, 28-year-old Melissa Dawn Sweeney was
sentenced to 30 days in jail, *the first three with nothing* to *eat*
*but bread and water* — which was “more than her horses got,” according
to Judge Mike Peters. I guess a riding crop would’ve been out of the
question.
rapist.jpgCourt Agrees to Give Rapist Lighter Sentence If Victim Agrees
to Marry Him
New Delhi, India: Pushing forgiveness to the extreme, a New Delhi court
asked a rape victim to consider marrying her attacker because she’d have
few other options due to the stigma of being raped. If she said yes, the
court would actually reduce the man’s sentence — presumably so they
could spend more time together? Thankfully, she refused the offer, and
the rapist was sentenced to life in prison, where he may very well catch
his own case of stigma.
*Drunk Driver Ordered to Carry Photo of Dead Victim*
Butler, Pennsylvania: When Jennifer Langston, 27, was convicted of
driving drunk and causing the accident that killed Glenn Clark and put
his pregnant wife in a coma, she was sentenced to only 30 days in jail
and ordered to carry a photo of Clark so that she could reflect on her
actions. When the picture provided by the victim’s mother turned out to
be that of Clark in his coffin, Langston protested, apparently not
appropriately relieved at her light sentence. However, Judge George
Hancher insisted, and she was forced to carry the photo with her for
five years.
Sentenced three men convicticted of soliciting prostitutes to an
hour on the street dressed as chickens.
Ordered a man who stole a Salvation Army donation kettle to spend a
night homeless.
Made a man who called police officers “pigs” stand on a street
corner with a pig wearing a sign that read “This is not a police officer.”
Made two men who shot paintball guns at a house shoot their own car.
Ordered a couple of teens who vandalized a nativity scene to walk
down the street with a donkey and an apology sign reading “Sorry for the
jackass offense.”
Ordered a woman who abandoned kittens in a park to spend a night in
the woods.
Sentenced a man who killed his dog to dress up like a “safety dog”
and educate elementary schools.
Made a teenager caught stealing adult videos stand outside the store
blindfolded with a sign reading “See no evil.”
Had a woman who stole money from a church spell out an apology in
coins in front of the church, reading “I stole coins from this church
and apologize to each worshipper as they enter the church.”
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""]
*Some of those were damn funny, but still slavery*
None of them were slavery. None of those punishments made the criminal
anyone's property.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 22:42:12 UTC
Permalink
On 1/21/2017 1:43 PM, Scout wrote:>
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Even if you're a legal slave?
At this point in history, there is no nation on earth where
slavery (that is, chattel slavery) is legal.
Actually, there is one. The United States of America. See the 13th
Amendment.
No, scooter. The thirteenth amendment does not permit chattel slavery.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-22 22:48:55 UTC
Permalink
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Then Killing the Jews in concentration camps was legal and proper?
There is considerable middle ground between "no right to life" and "no
unlimited (or even unlimmitted, whatever that is) right to life". There
is a broad range of circumstances under which the right to life can be
acknowledged, while limits on that right are also acknowledged.
Then a right is never a right as far as you are concerned... a right
is a constitutional suggestion for the courts to decide the amount of
that suggestion you will be allowed as you privilege that you receive
from the government?

[""""""Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its
extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful
*liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within* *limits*
*drawn* *around us by the equal rights of others* ....."
--Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819."""""""]
--
That's Karma
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Then Killing the Jews in concentration camps was legal and proper?
There is considerable middle ground between "no right to life" and "no
unlimited (or even unlimmitted, whatever that is) right to life". There
is a broad range of circumstances under which the right to life can be
acknowledged, while limits on that right are also acknowledged.
Then a right is never a right as far as you are concerned...
Did it hurt when your mother dropped you on your head when you
were an infant?
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 23:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Then Killing the Jews in concentration camps was legal and proper?
There is considerable middle ground between "no right to life" and "no
unlimited (or even unlimmitted, whatever that is) right to life". There
is a broad range of circumstances under which the right to life can be
acknowledged, while limits on that right are also acknowledged.
Then a right is never a right as far as you are concerned...
Did it hurt when your mother dropped you on your head when you
were an infant?
It is a complete waste of time, *every* time, to attempt to engage with
that fool.
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Then Killing the Jews in concentration camps was legal and proper?
There is considerable middle ground between "no right to life" and "no
unlimited (or even unlimmitted, whatever that is) right to life".
There
is a broad range of circumstances under which the right to life can be
acknowledged, while limits on that right are also acknowledged.
Then a right is never a right as far as you are concerned...
Did it hurt when your mother dropped you on your head when you
were an infant?
It is a complete waste of time, *every* time, to attempt to engage with
that fool.
So what? 99% of everything EVERYONE posts here, including you and me
too, is a waste of time. That's never stopped anyone before.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-23 00:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Then Killing the Jews in concentration camps was legal and proper?
There is considerable middle ground between "no right to life" and "no
unlimited (or even unlimmitted, whatever that is) right to life".
There
is a broad range of circumstances under which the right to life can be
acknowledged, while limits on that right are also acknowledged.
Then a right is never a right as far as you are concerned...
Did it hurt when your mother dropped you on your head when you
were an infant?
It is a complete waste of time, *every* time, to attempt to engage with
that fool.
So what? 99% of everything EVERYONE posts here, including you and me
too, is a waste of time. That's never stopped anyone before.
Well, I actually learn something from what I post.... And something
from what others post so I consider it worthwhile.

Did I save the world, maybe I had an idea that will eventually touch the
right person and they'll do the leg work to save the world.
--
That's Karma
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-22 22:52:31 UTC
Permalink
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you with
a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in, you can't
shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be imminent.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a rifle from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
--
That's Karma
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you with
a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in, you can't
shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be imminent.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a rifle from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
Whether someone accosts you with deadly force depends on the particular
facts of a situation. If you want to play with a never-ending series of
"what if" hypotheticals, go find someone else to play. None of them
challenge the basic principal that you are entitled to protect yourself
with deadly force against an opponent who accosts you with deadly force.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 23:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you with
a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in, you can't
shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be imminent.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a rifle from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
Whether someone accosts you with deadly force depends on the particular
facts of a situation. If you want to play with a never-ending series of
"what if" hypotheticals, go find someone else to play.
Why do you even bother with that fuckwit? He truly is the dumbest
motherfucker ever to pollute Usenet.
Post by Just Wondering
None of them
challenge the basic principal that you are entitled to protect yourself
with deadly force against an opponent who accosts you with deadly force.
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you with
a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in, you can't
shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be imminent.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a rifle from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
Whether someone accosts you with deadly force depends on the particular
facts of a situation. If you want to play with a never-ending series of
"what if" hypotheticals, go find someone else to play.
Why do you even bother with that fuckwit? He truly is the dumbest
motherfucker ever to pollute Usenet.
I have yet to see anyone, EVER, change anyone's mind in a material way
through usenet postings. All my postings, every last one, are
ultimately for my personal entertainment/amusement/diversion. When a
thread stops being fun, that's when I stop too.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
None of them
challenge the basic principal that you are entitled to protect yourself
with deadly force against an opponent who accosts you with deadly force.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 23:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you with
a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in, you can't
shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be imminent.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a rifle from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
Whether someone accosts you with deadly force depends on the particular
facts of a situation. If you want to play with a never-ending series of
"what if" hypotheticals, go find someone else to play.
Why do you even bother with that fuckwit? He truly is the dumbest
motherfucker ever to pollute Usenet.
I have yet to see anyone, EVER, change anyone's mind in a material way
through usenet postings. All my postings, every last one, are
ultimately for my personal entertainment/amusement/diversion. When a
thread stops being fun, that's when I stop too.
I guess I don't understand why you would derive any amusement from
arguing with such a 100% clueless fuckwit. He is wrong about
*everything*, every time. I get amusement from arguing with people who
seem to have some intelligence but are wrong. I like showing them to be
wrong. The fuckwit in question here never says anything worth
addressing in any way.
Just Wondering
2017-01-23 00:02:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you with
a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in, you can't
shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be imminent.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a rifle from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
Whether someone accosts you with deadly force depends on the particular
facts of a situation. If you want to play with a never-ending series of
"what if" hypotheticals, go find someone else to play.
Why do you even bother with that fuckwit? He truly is the dumbest
motherfucker ever to pollute Usenet.
I have yet to see anyone, EVER, change anyone's mind in a material way
through usenet postings. All my postings, every last one, are
ultimately for my personal entertainment/amusement/diversion. When a
thread stops being fun, that's when I stop too.
I guess I don't understand why you would derive any amusement from
arguing with such a 100% clueless ***.
And I don't understand why you would post three-fourths of the bullshit
you post either. Perhaps that makes us even on that score.
Post by Rudy Canoza
I get amusement
Then we at least agree our own amusement is a reason why we're here.
Post by Rudy Canoza
from arguing with people who
seem to have some intelligence but are wrong.
I like showing them to be wrong.
Unless you persuade them that they ARE wrong, you haven't shown
them anything. And you never seem quite able to do that.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 01:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you with
a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in, you can't
shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be imminent.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a rifle from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
Whether someone accosts you with deadly force depends on the particular
facts of a situation. If you want to play with a never-ending series of
"what if" hypotheticals, go find someone else to play.
Why do you even bother with that fuckwit? He truly is the dumbest
motherfucker ever to pollute Usenet.
I have yet to see anyone, EVER, change anyone's mind in a material way
through usenet postings. All my postings, every last one, are
ultimately for my personal entertainment/amusement/diversion. When a
thread stops being fun, that's when I stop too.
I guess I don't understand why you would derive any amusement from
arguing with such a 100% clueless ***.
And I don't understand why you would post three-fourths of the bullshit
you post either.
I never post bullshit. Perhaps some of what I post isn't on topics that
interest you.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
I get amusement
Then we at least agree our own amusement is a reason why we're here.
It's not the only reason I'm here.
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
from arguing with people who
seem to have some intelligence but are wrong.
I like showing them to be wrong.
Unless you persuade them that they ARE wrong, you haven't shown
them anything.
I've shown them.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:25:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at you with
a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in, you can't
shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be imminent.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a rifle from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
Whether someone accosts you with deadly force depends on the particular
facts of a situation. If you want to play with a never-ending series of
"what if" hypotheticals, go find someone else to play.
Why do you even bother with that fuckwit? He truly is the dumbest
motherfucker ever to pollute Usenet.
I have yet to see anyone, EVER, change anyone's mind in a material way
through usenet postings. All my postings, every last one, are
ultimately for my personal entertainment/amusement/diversion. When a
thread stops being fun, that's when I stop too.
I guess I don't understand why you would derive any amusement from
arguing with such a 100% clueless ***.
And I don't understand why you would post three-fourths of the bullshit
you post either.
I never post bullshit.
What a load of utter bullshit.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 03:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Depends. If some guy is four houses down the block running at
you
with
a raised baseball bat saying he's going to smash your head in,
you
can't
shoot him when he's 75 yards away. The threat has to be imminent.
That's why I used the verb "accost". Someone with a bat who is 75 yards
away has not yet accosted you with deadly force. He would have to be
within striking distance. OTOH, someone firing at you with a
rifle
from
75 yards has done so, and you are justified in defending yourself.
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club contained a bomb?
That person could then kill you from 75 yards away by throwing it.
Whether someone accosts you with deadly force depends on the particular
facts of a situation. If you want to play with a never-ending series of
"what if" hypotheticals, go find someone else to play.
Why do you even bother with that fuckwit? He truly is the dumbest
motherfucker ever to pollute Usenet.
I have yet to see anyone, EVER, change anyone's mind in a material way
through usenet postings. All my postings, every last one, are
ultimately for my personal entertainment/amusement/diversion. When a
thread stops being fun, that's when I stop too.
I guess I don't understand why you would derive any amusement from
arguing with such a 100% clueless ***.
And I don't understand why you would post three-fourths of the bullshit
you post either.
I never post bullshit.
What a load of
No.
Just Wondering
2017-01-23 08:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
A knife can be thrown.... how would know if the club
contained a bomb? That person could then kill you
from 75 yards away by throwing it.
Whether someone accosts you with deadly force depends
on the particular facts of a situation. If you want
to play with a never-ending series of "what if"
hypotheticals, go find someone else to play.
Why do you even bother with that fuckwit? He truly is
the dumbest ***** ever to pollute Usenet.
I have yet to see anyone, EVER, change anyone's mind in
a material way through usenet postings. All my postings,
every last one, are ultimately for my personal entertainment
/amusement/diversion. When a thread stops being fun, that's
when I stop too.
I guess I don't understand why you would derive any amusement
from arguing with such a 100% clueless ***.
And I don't understand why you would post three-fourths of
the bullshit you post either.
I never post bullshit.
OK, call it valuable, plant-nourishing organic fertilizer.
It still smells the same.
Attila
2017-01-22 23:24:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:56:53 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:54:20 -0500, "Scout"
Yet Attila would assert that all our rights are all addressed within the
law. When challenged Attila is unable to produce the statutes that define
some of the most basic rights, such as the right to life.
No, I am waiting for a reference that actually proves such a right
exists.
Well, until you get it, seems that your position is that people have no
rights at all.
Your usual erroneous interpretation of what was said.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:56:53 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:54:20 -0500, "Scout"
Yet Attila would assert that all our rights are all addressed within the
law. When challenged Attila is unable to produce the statutes that define
some of the most basic rights, such as the right to life.
No, I am waiting for a reference that actually proves such a right
exists.
Well, until you get it, seems that your position is that people have no
rights at all.
Your usual erroneous interpretation of what was said.
You're the one who said they are waiting for someone to provide you with the
references that prove rights exist within the law.

I can only go by what you say.
Attila
2017-01-22 23:25:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:58:08 -0500, "Scout"
I suspect if I said water is wet you would disagree.
You suspect a lot of things. The issue is what you can actually support with
facts.
So far, you're utterly failing to support your claims.
In your opinion, which is of total indifference to me.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-23 01:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:58:08 -0500, "Scout"
I suspect if I said water is wet you would disagree.
You suspect a lot of things. The issue is what you can actually support with
facts.
So far, you're utterly failing to support your claims.
In your opinion, which is of total indifference to me.
As is your opinions. So why don't you stick with what you can prove?
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 02:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:58:08 -0500, "Scout"
I suspect if I said water is wet you would disagree.
You suspect a lot of things. The issue is what you can actually support with
facts.
So far, you're utterly failing to support your claims.
In your opinion, which is of total indifference to me.
As is your opinions. So why don't you stick with what you can prove?
Heed your own advice, boy.
Scout
2017-01-23 03:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:58:08 -0500, "Scout"
I suspect if I said water is wet you would disagree.
You suspect a lot of things. The issue is what you can actually support with
facts.
So far, you're utterly failing to support your claims.
In your opinion, which is of total indifference to me.
As is your opinions. So why don't you stick with what you can prove?
Heed your own advice, boy.
I usually do.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 04:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:58:08 -0500, "Scout"
I suspect if I said water is wet you would disagree.
You suspect a lot of things. The issue is what you can actually support with
facts.
So far, you're utterly failing to support your claims.
In your opinion, which is of total indifference to me.
As is your opinions. So why don't you stick with what you can prove?
Heed your own advice, boy.
I usually do.
Not this time, you didn't.
Scout
2017-01-23 04:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:58:08 -0500, "Scout"
I suspect if I said water is wet you would disagree.
You suspect a lot of things. The issue is what you can actually support with
facts.
So far, you're utterly failing to support your claims.
In your opinion, which is of total indifference to me.
As is your opinions. So why don't you stick with what you can prove?
Heed your own advice, boy.
I usually do.
Not this time, you didn't.
Since I've already proven what I say is true, clearly I followed my own
advice.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 05:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:58:08 -0500, "Scout"
I suspect if I said water is wet you would disagree.
You suspect a lot of things. The issue is what you can actually support with
facts.
So far, you're utterly failing to support your claims.
In your opinion, which is of total indifference to me.
As is your opinions. So why don't you stick with what you can prove?
Heed your own advice, boy.
I usually do.
Not this time, you didn't.
Since I've already proven what I say is true
Haven't.
Attila
2017-01-22 23:26:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:51:27 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 03:31:19 -0700, Just Wondering
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Which is my right regardless of the content of a statute.
Which is my right even if a statute says otherwise - the
statute would be unconstitutional.
You would still join a number of others in jail who felt the same way.
Being free isn't safe, but it's a damn sight better that the sort of
existence you would advocate.
It's no different from what we have today.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:12:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:51:27 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 03:31:19 -0700, Just Wondering
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Which is my right regardless of the content of a statute.
Which is my right even if a statute says otherwise - the
statute would be unconstitutional.
You would still join a number of others in jail who felt the same way.
Being free isn't safe, but it's a damn sight better that the sort of
existence you would advocate.
It's no different from what we have today.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.
Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.
At which point, according to you, it would be your RIGHT to get such an
income.

After all, anything the government says, is what you accept, right?
Attila
2017-01-23 09:37:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 21:12:48 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:51:27 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 03:31:19 -0700, Just Wondering
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Which is my right regardless of the content of a statute.
Which is my right even if a statute says otherwise - the
statute would be unconstitutional.
You would still join a number of others in jail who felt the same way.
Being free isn't safe, but it's a damn sight better that the sort of
existence you would advocate.
It's no different from what we have today.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.
Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.
At which point, according to you, it would be your RIGHT to get such an
income.
Not only not a right but impossible, but you didn't notice that did
you?
Post by Scout
After all, anything the government says, is what you accept, right?
Not even close.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-24 05:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 21:12:48 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:51:27 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 03:31:19 -0700, Just Wondering
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Which is my right regardless of the content of a statute.
Which is my right even if a statute says otherwise - the
statute would be unconstitutional.
You would still join a number of others in jail who felt the same way.
Being free isn't safe, but it's a damn sight better that the sort of
existence you would advocate.
It's no different from what we have today.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.
Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.
At which point, according to you, it would be your RIGHT to get such an
income.
Not only not a right but impossible, but you didn't notice that did
you?
Oh, I noticed, and I also know that you claim when the law says you have a
right....then you do, no what. Just as you have no rights, unless the law
says you do.

Poor little tot, holding out his bowl, hoping the government will drop some
rights into it for him.
Attila
2017-01-24 10:21:13 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:36:26 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 21:12:48 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:51:27 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 03:31:19 -0700, Just Wondering
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Which is my right regardless of the content of a statute.
Which is my right even if a statute says otherwise - the
statute would be unconstitutional.
You would still join a number of others in jail who felt the same way.
Being free isn't safe, but it's a damn sight better that the sort of
existence you would advocate.
It's no different from what we have today.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.
Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.
At which point, according to you, it would be your RIGHT to get such an
income.
Not only not a right but impossible, but you didn't notice that did
you?
Oh, I noticed,
I doubt that.
Post by Scout
and I also know that you claim when the law says you have a
right....then you do, no what.
No what?
Post by Scout
Just as you have no rights, unless the law
says you do.
Actually I said such rights which may or may not exist don't matter
since apparently they can be violated by anyone who cares to do so and
there is nothing to prevent this.
Post by Scout
Poor little tot, holding out his bowl, hoping the government will drop some
rights into it for him.
I notice you go to great lengths to attack me in every way you can
think of while carefully avoiding the question I have asked many
times.

To reiterate I actually said: The only rights that exist are those
that are defined and enforced under the law.

In our society the only enforcement mechanism is the legal system so
any actions taken outside of that system are probably illegal.
Especially actions that restrain or 'punish' someone else.

A right that is not enforced is irrelevant - and just doesn't matter.
Of what use is a right that can be ignored with impunity?

I have repeatedly asked for an example of a right that does not exist
within the law and is not enforced by the legal system and the only
response I have received involves a Right to Life yet no one has been
able to give a reference to any such right and there are many, many
laws involving when a person may or may not be killed.

If there is a right to life why am I not punished for refusing to
provide blood or a body part to prevent someone from dying? Or for
munching a sandwich while watching someone starve to death?

Requesting links to specific laws are a bit ridiculous since there are
thousands of jurisdictions in the US, each of which has it's own laws.
At best there would be at least fifty such references since every
state would be involved. My question involves that which is not
covered by any law so no such link would exist.

I now expect a response with a lot of accusations but with no actual
reference to any right that exists outside of the law and which
actually has some way to enforce it if someone violates it. If it
can't be violated who cares whether it exists or not?

If I say I have an absolute right in my own home to always put my left
sock on first does anyone dispute this? Does anyone care? How can I
be forced to put my right sock on first without a law being violated?

I also expect this response to be butchered or completely removed
since it is, in the opinion of the poster, irrelevant and unimportant.
After all, it isn't something he said therefore it isn't worth saving
is it?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-25 05:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:36:26 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 21:12:48 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:51:27 -0500, "Scout"
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 03:31:19 -0700, Just Wondering
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Which is my right regardless of the content of a statute.
Which is my right even if a statute says otherwise - the
statute would be unconstitutional.
You would still join a number of others in jail who felt the same way.
Being free isn't safe, but it's a damn sight better that the sort of
existence you would advocate.
It's no different from what we have today.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.
Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.
At which point, according to you, it would be your RIGHT to get such an
income.
Not only not a right but impossible, but you didn't notice that did
you?
Oh, I noticed,
I doubt that.
You can doubt what you like, but given your views on the law, it doesn't
matter what is possible, only what the law is according to the courts.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
and I also know that you claim when the law says you have a
right....then you do, no what.
No what?
You'll have to wait for the courts to tell you, since according to you only
the Courts can discuss the law.
Attila
2017-01-25 08:08:53 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:56:14 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted
or limited, either
right to life.
If you're trapped in burning car, the police and firefighters
will do what they can with undue risk to themselves and with
resources available. They don't want to listen to you scream
as you die, but they may have more victims than they can
treat so they concentrate on the ones most likely to survive.
More to the point for t.p.guns, if someone accosts me with
deadly force I have a right to use a gun to deprive him of life.
Which is your right UNDER THE LAW.
Which is my right regardless of the content of a statute.
Which is my right even if a statute says otherwise - the
statute would be unconstitutional.
You would still join a number of others in jail who felt the same way.
Being free isn't safe, but it's a damn sight better that the sort of
existence you would advocate.
It's no different from what we have today.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.
Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.
At which point, according to you, it would be your RIGHT to get such an
income.
Not only not a right but impossible, but you didn't notice that did
you?
Oh, I noticed,
I doubt that.
You can doubt what you like, but given your views on the law, it doesn't
matter what is possible, only what the law is according to the courts.
What is possible counts too, especially when the subject has nothing
to do with any law. You prove you did not read my statement.


Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person."
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
and I also know that you claim when the law says you have a
right....then you do, no what.
No what?
You'll have to wait for the courts to tell you, since according to you only
the Courts can discuss the law.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Attila
2017-01-22 23:28:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:00:26 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:49:20 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very
good reason.
So anyone else can kill you with impunity?
According to Attila the right has to be rigidly defined within the law or
such a right doesn't exist.
Shall we look at a few definitions?
No, I would rather see you produce the statutes you claim exist that fully
define and delineate these rights as you assert exist within the law.
I would rather you stop clipping my comments in order to respond to
one part of them but I doubt either of us will achieve our desires.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-22 23:35:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:00:26 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:49:20 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very
good reason.
So anyone else can kill you with impunity?
According to Attila the right has to be rigidly defined within the law or
such a right doesn't exist.
Shall we look at a few definitions?
No, I would rather see you produce the statutes you claim exist that fully
define and delineate these rights as you assert exist within the law.
I would rather you stop clipping my comments
You don't get to dictate anything.
Scout
2017-01-23 01:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:00:26 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:49:20 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very
good reason.
So anyone else can kill you with impunity?
According to Attila the right has to be rigidly defined within the law or
such a right doesn't exist.
Shall we look at a few definitions?
No, I would rather see you produce the statutes you claim exist that fully
define and delineate these rights as you assert exist within the law.
I would rather you stop clipping my comments in order to respond to
one part of them but I doubt either of us will achieve our desires.
Why bother, when the validity of the rest of what you say hinges on your
ability to support your opening assertion?
Attila
2017-01-23 09:39:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 20:57:23 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
I would rather you stop clipping my comments in order to respond to
one part of them but I doubt either of us will achieve our desires.
Why bother, when the validity of the rest of what you say hinges on your
ability to support your opening assertion?
It's simple. Stop clipping or the discussion will stop.

Is that clear enough for you?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Attila
2017-01-22 23:31:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:03:45 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 21:47:01 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific cases, I
would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has
been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Courts can conclude and have it mean something. For everyone else it
is just an opinion.
So, you're too stupid to be able to read it for yourself and determine it's
meaning?
I am saying my opinion of it's meaning is irrelevant since only the
opinion of a court matters.

BTW, your opinion is equally meaningless but we all knew that.
I suppose that makes sense, given that you don't even know what your rights
are unless someone else tells you what they are.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-23 01:59:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:03:45 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 21:47:01 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific cases, I
would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has
been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Courts can conclude and have it mean something. For everyone else it
is just an opinion.
So, you're too stupid to be able to read it for yourself and determine it's
meaning?
I am saying my opinion of it's meaning is irrelevant since only the
opinion of a court matters.
Oh, so now we're not governed by the Constitution, but rather 9 men in
robes?

Meanwhile, I acknowledge you need to be told what to think, apparently
because you're unable to do so for yourself.
Attila
2017-01-23 09:42:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 20:59:29 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:03:45 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 21:47:01 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific cases, I
would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has
been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Courts can conclude and have it mean something. For everyone else it
is just an opinion.
So, you're too stupid to be able to read it for yourself and determine it's
meaning?
I am saying my opinion of it's meaning is irrelevant since only the
opinion of a court matters.
Oh, so now we're not governed by the Constitution, but rather 9 men in
robes?
It's a lot more than that. Any court can interpret a law.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-24 05:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 20:59:29 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:03:45 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 21:47:01 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific
cases,
I
would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has
been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Courts can conclude and have it mean something. For everyone else it
is just an opinion.
So, you're too stupid to be able to read it for yourself and determine it's
meaning?
I am saying my opinion of it's meaning is irrelevant since only the
opinion of a court matters.
Oh, so now we're not governed by the Constitution, but rather 9 men in
robes?
It's a lot more than that. Any court can interpret a law.
Sure, and you can interpret a law, and I can interpret a law, and Bubba can
interpret a law.

Indeed, to allow EVERYONE to know the law, is why we have a written code of
law.

You apparently can't read for yourself, but rather you need someone to tell
you what all those words mean.

Just like everything else, you what for others to tell you what rights you
have, what the law means, and probably even what you should think.

Sad really, that you are so unable to do anything for yourself.
Attila
2017-01-24 10:30:24 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:39:08 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 20:59:29 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:03:45 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 21:47:01 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific
cases,
I
would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has
been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Courts can conclude and have it mean something. For everyone else it
is just an opinion.
So, you're too stupid to be able to read it for yourself and determine it's
meaning?
I am saying my opinion of it's meaning is irrelevant since only the
opinion of a court matters.
Oh, so now we're not governed by the Constitution, but rather 9 men in
robes?
It's a lot more than that. Any court can interpret a law.
Sure, and you can interpret a law, and I can interpret a law, and Bubba can
interpret a law.
And none of means anything. The only interpretations of a law that
have any meaning are those made by a court - that makes the court
opinion law and enforceable by the law and the courts.

Your interpretation, my interpretation, and Bubba's interpretation are
all simply opinions, have equal weight, and are equally meaningless.
Post by Scout
Indeed, to allow EVERYONE to know the law, is why we have a written code of
law.
Mostly it is to let the courts know what laws have been enacted by the
legislature. And to give a broad outline to the police and the public
on an informational basis. The most important group are the courts
since the courts will interpret the law and decide what it really
means within the structure of existing law.
Post by Scout
You apparently can't read for yourself, but rather you need someone to tell
you what all those words mean.
When you are talking about the law only the courts can decide what
'all of those words' really mean.
Post by Scout
Just like everything else, you what for others to tell you what rights you
have, what the law means, and probably even what you should think.
Sad really, that you are so unable to do anything for yourself.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
"Attila
2017-01-24 10:35:53 UTC
Permalink
Does a one legged duck swim in circles?
Scout
2017-01-25 05:48:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:39:08 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 20:59:29 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:03:45 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 21:47:01 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life
without
a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific
cases,
I
would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has
been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Courts can conclude and have it mean something. For everyone else it
is just an opinion.
So, you're too stupid to be able to read it for yourself and determine it's
meaning?
I am saying my opinion of it's meaning is irrelevant since only the
opinion of a court matters.
Oh, so now we're not governed by the Constitution, but rather 9 men in
robes?
It's a lot more than that. Any court can interpret a law.
Sure, and you can interpret a law, and I can interpret a law, and Bubba can
interpret a law.
And none of means anything.
Sure it does. If you think your rights depend on the law, and you let the
courts tell you what the law means, then your rights exist purely only if 5
people decide you have them.

You couldn't even tell you were getting screwed over, because you can't be
bothered to look to see if what they say has any basis within what the law
actually is.

Yep, you rely purely on other people to tell you what rights you have, what
the law is, what your opinion should be, and anything else they decide you
need to know. To think for yourself? That's not task of a serf holding out
his bowl for handouts.
Post by Attila
The only interpretations of a law that
have any meaning are those made by a court - that makes the court
opinion law and enforceable by the law and the courts.
So if the law says "Red" and the Court says "Blue"....that's ok because it
doesn't really matter what the law says?

Seems to me such arbitrary and whimsical law from the bench is exactly why
the US has a written code of law. So that EVERYONE can see exactly what the
law is, and whether something is legal or illegal.

In a stroke you would effectively remove any power from both the legislative
and executive branches of government and place it all in the hands of 9
people who get to decide what law they want by 5 agreeing.
Post by Attila
Your interpretation, my interpretation, and Bubba's interpretation are
all simply opinions, have equal weight, and are equally meaningless.
And yet, you can't be bothered to even have an opinion so you can see if the
government is even doing what it's suppose to be doing under the law.

You would be like a Jew in Germany heading into the showers but knowing it
was all legal because the courts said so.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Indeed, to allow EVERYONE to know the law, is why we have a written code of
law.
Mostly it is to let the courts know what laws have been enacted by the
legislature.
Sorry, but the law isn't something special written just for the courts.

Explains why you're so confused about your rights, and unable to find what
you claim exists in the law. Looks like you need a judge to help you out.
After all, clearly it's impossible for anyone else to read the law and know
what it says.....according to you.
Post by Attila
And to give a broad outline to the police and the public
on an informational basis.
Court: All Jews are to report to the government showers for a mandatory
cleaning.

Yea, after all, why should we bother with whether the courts are actually
enforcing the law.....or just inventing it out of thin air?
Post by Attila
The most important group are the courts
since the courts will interpret the law and decide what it really
means within the structure of existing law.
Sorry, but the meaning was set by the language and intent of the
legislature. It is the job of the Court to apply that meaning, not whatever
they pull out of their collective ass.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
You apparently can't read for yourself, but rather you need someone to tell
you what all those words mean.
When you are talking about the law only the courts can decide what
'all of those words' really mean.
In that case, you should SHUT UP about the law. You're not a court, and thus
have NOTHING to say about what the law is, much less our rights or anything
else that you say depends upon the law.

By your OWN statement, you can't decide what "all those words" really mean.

So, now that you can no longer say anything that involves the law.....what
shall you talk about next?

Note any comments, questions, or issues that involve the law is nothing you
can speak about again. Until and unless you document for us what US Court
you are.
Attila
2017-01-25 08:48:05 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:48:13 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life
without
a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Given that they can do so only in a very small set of specific
cases,
I
would conclude there is a right to life codified in the law.
You can conclude what you like, but without proof that the right to life
has
been defined and is enforced by the law....it's just speculation.
Right?
Courts can conclude and have it mean something. For everyone else it
is just an opinion.
So, you're too stupid to be able to read it for yourself and determine it's
meaning?
I am saying my opinion of it's meaning is irrelevant since only the
opinion of a court matters.
Oh, so now we're not governed by the Constitution, but rather 9 men in
robes?
It's a lot more than that. Any court can interpret a law.
Sure, and you can interpret a law, and I can interpret a law, and Bubba can
interpret a law.
And none of means anything.
Sure it does. If you think your rights depend on the law, and you let the
courts tell you what the law means, then your rights exist purely only if 5
people decide you have them.
They exist if the legislature passes the proper laws and they are
interpreted by the courts properly. The number of people involved is
irrelevant.
Post by Scout
You couldn't even tell you were getting screwed over, because you can't be
bothered to look to see if what they say has any basis within what the law
actually is.
My opinion (and your opinion) about what a law actually is does not
matter because neither of us is a court. It is to settle that
particular point that courts exist.
Post by Scout
Yep, you rely purely on other people to tell you what rights you have, what
the law is, what your opinion should be, and anything else they decide you
need to know. To think for yourself? That's not task of a serf holding out
his bowl for handouts.
Opinions, no.
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
The only interpretations of a law that
have any meaning are those made by a court - that makes the court
opinion law and enforceable by the law and the courts.
So if the law says "Red" and the Court says "Blue"....that's ok because it
doesn't really matter what the law says?
Yes, but what it means depends on a court interpretation.

You have no clue about how our legal system works do you?

Are you aware we have two kinds of law? Statutory law and case law?
Post by Scout
Seems to me such arbitrary and whimsical law from the bench is exactly why
the US has a written code of law. So that EVERYONE can see exactly what the
law is, and whether something is legal or illegal.
What is seems to you is irrelevant since you have no legal power to
decide what a law means. You sound like someone who tries to act as
their own attorney in court, and it is said of such people that they
have a fool for a client.

Did you ever hear of a lawyer? Do you know what they do? And why?
Post by Scout
In a stroke you would effectively remove any power from both the legislative
and executive branches of government and place it all in the hands of 9
people who get to decide what law they want by 5 agreeing.
No, because a court cannot enact new laws. It can only interpret
existing law in the context of prior laws and court cases.

A legislature once passed a law that made pi equal to 4.0000000 in
it's state to make it easer for students to do math. The law lasted
until the first court challenge, but without such a challenge just how
would such a law ever be repealed if the legislature refused to do so?
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Your interpretation, my interpretation, and Bubba's interpretation are
all simply opinions, have equal weight, and are equally meaningless.
And yet, you can't be bothered to even have an opinion so you can see if the
government is even doing what it's suppose to be doing under the law.
Sure you can, and you express that opinion in the ballot box. That is
why we have elections.
Post by Scout
You would be like a Jew in Germany heading into the showers but knowing it
was all legal because the courts said so.
True.
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
Indeed, to allow EVERYONE to know the law, is why we have a written code of
law.
Mostly it is to let the courts know what laws have been enacted by the
legislature.
Sorry, but the law isn't something special written just for the courts.
I never said it is.
Post by Scout
Explains why you're so confused about your rights, and unable to find what
you claim exists in the law. Looks like you need a judge to help you out.
After all, clearly it's impossible for anyone else to read the law and know
what it says.....according to you.
That is the way the system works. While you are free to have any
opinion you like about any law, how that law works, and what it means
in reality it is only your opinion and no one else needs to listen to
you. You cannot tell the police to arrest someone for violating a law
- you do not have that power.

A court can decide what a law means, whether it applies in a certain
situation, and can order the police to make an arrest.

That is why there are things like warrants and other legal documents
and why it is the court system that determines guilt or innocence and
imposes penalties.
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
And to give a broad outline to the police and the public
on an informational basis.
Court: All Jews are to report to the government showers for a mandatory
cleaning.
If that is the law and it does not conflict with prior existing law,
yes.
Post by Scout
Yea, after all, why should we bother with whether the courts are actually
enforcing the law.....or just inventing it out of thin air?
Because the court cannot create laws but only enforce them. If the
majority disagrees with a court ruling the law can be changed by the
legislature to bring it into line with what is desired.

This is common when a legislature passes a law which is popular with a
segment of voters while knowing the law will never take effect due to
court interpretation. This is common with laws attempting to restrict
a woman's right to choose an abortion. This also is demonstrated with
Prohibition, where the courts ordered enforcement of the no alcohol
laws until the law was repealed. Since it was established by an
Amendment it took another Amendment to eliminate it.
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
The most important group are the courts
since the courts will interpret the law and decide what it really
means within the structure of existing law.
Sorry, but the meaning was set by the language and intent of the
legislature. It is the job of the Court to apply that meaning, not whatever
they pull out of their collective ass.
Legislatures make errors, and it is not uncommon for a law to intend
one thing and actually accomplish something else.

The courts interpret laws within the context of other existing laws
and prior court cases in order to legally determine exactly what a law
means. The legislature can pass new laws to adjust this meaning if
they screwed up the first time.
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
You apparently can't read for yourself, but rather you need someone to tell
you what all those words mean.
When you are talking about the law only the courts can decide what
'all of those words' really mean.
In that case, you should SHUT UP about the law. You're not a court, and thus
have NOTHING to say about what the law is, much less our rights or anything
else that you say depends upon the law.
I can express an opinion (which is what I am doing) and point out
where in that opinion you are wrong. I will leave it to any third
party to decide, in their opinion, whether I am right or wrong in
doing so.

I will shut up when you stop posting what I consider errors.
Post by Scout
By your OWN statement, you can't decide what "all those words" really mean.
Nor can you.
Post by Scout
So, now that you can no longer say anything that involves the law.....what
shall you talk about next?
Since you do not have the power to say what I can or cannot discus it
is obvious your statement that I can "no longer say anything that
involves the law" is dead wrong.
Post by Scout
Note any comments, questions, or issues that involve the law is nothing you
can speak about again. Until and unless you document for us what US Court
you are.
You are the one who seems to be making all the wrong declarations
about the legal system, what it is, and how it works. You seem to
think everyone is free to decide just what a law says and what it
means and that decision is somehow binding on everyone else.

Just where do you think the wording in a contract (not to mention the
'fine print' we all know and love) comes from? The contract fairy?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Attila
2017-01-22 23:36:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:05:22 -0500, "Scout"
And you should be punished in the prescribed manner for such illegal
activity.
They can try, but that's not always going to be possible or even legal.
I said the prescribed manner, your moron, but that doesn't preclude
ignoring the law. That happens all too often.

Look at all of those illegal "sanctuary cities" and the immigration
laws that are ignored.
Certainly all the petitions, writs, etc by the Colonists weren't making an
impression....but one good olde armed revolt, and they could no longer
deny
it. Heck they were no longer in a position to do much about it.
A successful armed uprising is always a final option.
Agreed, but it is always an option.
Thanks for your admission that people can, have and do defend their rights
even when the law neither defines such a right or enforces such a right.
An armed uprising can occur for any reason, and defending rights is
usually at the bottom of the list.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:05:22 -0500, "Scout"
And you should be punished in the prescribed manner for such illegal
activity.
They can try, but that's not always going to be possible or even legal.
I said the prescribed manner, your moron, but that doesn't preclude
ignoring the law. That happens all too often.
It certainly can. Even SCOTUS has said so, and you always listen to the
opinions of SCOTUS, right?
Attila
2017-01-23 09:48:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 21:00:37 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:05:22 -0500, "Scout"
And you should be punished in the prescribed manner for such illegal
activity.
They can try, but that's not always going to be possible or even legal.
I said the prescribed manner, your moron, but that doesn't preclude
ignoring the law. That happens all too often.
It certainly can. Even SCOTUS has said so, and you always listen to the
opinions of SCOTUS, right?
Since SCOUS has the final determination as to what a law says and how
it is to be applied it is a bit difficult to see how they can tell
anyone to ignore any law. Whatever they say is automatically legal.

Yes, I do listen to their opinions since I don't make it a habit to go
around ignoring laws. I really, really don't want to go to jail and I
don't feel strongly enough about anything to take this risk.


--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-24 05:42:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 21:00:37 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:05:22 -0500, "Scout"
And you should be punished in the prescribed manner for such illegal
activity.
They can try, but that's not always going to be possible or even legal.
I said the prescribed manner, your moron, but that doesn't preclude
ignoring the law. That happens all too often.
It certainly can. Even SCOTUS has said so, and you always listen to the
opinions of SCOTUS, right?
Since SCOUS has the final determination as to what a law says and how
it is to be applied it is a bit difficult to see how they can tell
anyone to ignore any law. Whatever they say is automatically legal.
So racial discrimination was perfectly fine because SCOUTS said so?

People are property because SCOUTS said so?

Might want to look into the 'final' determinations made by SCOUTS before you
decide to blindly accept everything they say as if they and they alone have
some mystical power to read the law.
Attila
2017-01-24 10:41:05 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:42:22 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 21:00:37 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:05:22 -0500, "Scout"
And you should be punished in the prescribed manner for such illegal
activity.
They can try, but that's not always going to be possible or even legal.
I said the prescribed manner, your moron, but that doesn't preclude
ignoring the law. That happens all too often.
It certainly can. Even SCOTUS has said so, and you always listen to the
opinions of SCOTUS, right?
Since SCOUS has the final determination as to what a law says and how
it is to be applied it is a bit difficult to see how they can tell
anyone to ignore any law. Whatever they say is automatically legal.
So racial discrimination was perfectly fine because SCOUTS said so?
A different question. It was perfectly legal because SCOTUS said so.
Post by Scout
People are property because SCOUTS said so?
Under the existing laws, yes.

BYW, it the proper Amendments were passed and the proper laws were
enacted slavery could easily become legal again at any time. If you
disagree, why?

BTW. it's SCOTUS. SCOUTS are commonly found in old western movies.
Post by Scout
Might want to look into the 'final' determinations made by SCOUTS before you
decide to blindly accept everything they say as if they and they alone have
some mystical power to read the law.
SCOUTS don't, but SCOTUS has the legal and final authority to
determine exactly what any particular law says, what it means, and how
it is enforced. If you disagree no one cares.

A lower court can be reversed by a higher court but the only way to
reverse SCOTUS is to either re-legislate the law and change or
eliminate that law or, if the Constitution is involved, to Amend the
Constitution.

Of course SCOTUS can also change it's opinion in a future case if you
wish to wait that long with your fingers crossed.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Scout
2017-01-25 05:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:42:22 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 21:00:37 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:05:22 -0500, "Scout"
And you should be punished in the prescribed manner for such illegal
activity.
They can try, but that's not always going to be possible or even legal.
I said the prescribed manner, your moron, but that doesn't preclude
ignoring the law. That happens all too often.
It certainly can. Even SCOTUS has said so, and you always listen to the
opinions of SCOTUS, right?
Since SCOUS has the final determination as to what a law says and how
it is to be applied it is a bit difficult to see how they can tell
anyone to ignore any law. Whatever they say is automatically legal.
So racial discrimination was perfectly fine because SCOUTS said so?
A different question. It was perfectly legal because SCOTUS said so.
That's not what SCOTUS said.
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
People are property because SCOUTS said so?
Under the existing laws, yes.
Sorry, you're not a court and thus by your own statements you can say
nothing about the law.

<snip all legal discussion which is irrelevant since only the courts can
tell us what the law means. >

If you don't like it, then maybe you shouldn't have set the rules that way.
Attila
2017-01-25 08:55:45 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:50:24 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:42:22 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 21:00:37 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 14:05:22 -0500, "Scout"
And you should be punished in the prescribed manner for such illegal
activity.
They can try, but that's not always going to be possible or even legal.
I said the prescribed manner, your moron, but that doesn't preclude
ignoring the law. That happens all too often.
It certainly can. Even SCOTUS has said so, and you always listen to the
opinions of SCOTUS, right?
Since SCOUS has the final determination as to what a law says and how
it is to be applied it is a bit difficult to see how they can tell
anyone to ignore any law. Whatever they say is automatically legal.
So racial discrimination was perfectly fine because SCOUTS said so?
A different question. It was perfectly legal because SCOTUS said so.
That's not what SCOTUS said.
It did at a certain point in history. The Dred Scott decision, for
example.

Plus all of the separate but equal decisions prior to Brown vs Board
of Education.
Post by Scout
Post by Attila
Post by Scout
People are property because SCOUTS said so?
Under the existing laws, yes.
Sorry, you're not a court and thus by your own statements you can say
nothing about the law.
I can read the Court decisions. I can and frequently do have personal
opinions but I have no legal standing or power to interpret or enforce
any law. I can say what I like.
Post by Scout
<snip all legal discussion which is irrelevant since only the courts can
tell us what the law means. >
If I clipped everything you say that is irrelevant there would be
little left.
Post by Scout
If you don't like it, then maybe you shouldn't have set the rules that way.
Just what 'rules' have I set? And what don't I like?


--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-22 23:37:33 UTC
Permalink
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Then Killing the Jews in concentration camps was legal and proper?
There is considerable middle ground between "no right to life" and "no
unlimited (or even unlimmitted, whatever that is) right to life". There
is a broad range of circumstances under which the right to life can be
acknowledged, while limits on that right are also acknowledged.
Then a right is never a right as far as you are concerned... a right
is a constitutional suggestion for the courts to decide the amount of
that suggestion you will be allowed as you privilege that you receive
from the government?

[""""""Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its
extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful
*liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within* *limits*
*drawn* *around us by the equal rights of others* ....."
--Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819."""""""]

I don't have the right to shoot you, and you don't have the right to
disarm me.

If I shoot you it violates your rights, if you in any way try to disarm
me it violates my rights. You violate my rights you go to jail, I
violate your rights and I go to jail.

Shouldn't some of the gun confiscators be going to jail? I can't pass a
law to allow me to shoot you, neither can you pass any laws to take my
gun so I can't use it if I need it.
--
That's Karma
Just Wondering
2017-01-22 23:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
Then Killing the Jews in concentration camps was legal and proper?
There is considerable middle ground between "no right to life" and "no
unlimited (or even unlimmitted, whatever that is) right to life". There
is a broad range of circumstances under which the right to life can be
acknowledged, while limits on that right are also acknowledged.
Then a right is never a right as far as you are concerned...
Tell your mother you forgive her for the damage she caused
by dropping you on the head as an infant.
Mary W. Moffat
2017-01-22 23:52:31 UTC
Permalink
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
*unlimted*, you fucking illiterate cunt-hair.

"murderred", "murderrer"
"abandonned"
"prisonner"
"bigotted"
"wonderred", "wonderring"
"happenned"
"mentionned"
"threatenning"
"biasses"
"edittor", "edittorial"
"marketting"
"civillian"
"Neighbourring"
"conquerred"
"deliverred"
"cowerring"
"sufferring"
"limitted"
"registerring"
"pardonned"
"developping"
"modelled"
"anchorred"
"uppitty"
"coverred"
"considerred"
"riotting"
"warmongerring"
"discoverred"
"botherred"
"biassed"
"conquerred"
"triggerred"

And now

"unlimitted"

Why do you work so hard at being a stupid shitbag?
Kadaitcha Man
2017-01-23 09:48:23 UTC
Permalink
Mary W. Moffat, base dunghill villain, I'll have thy head. Ye
Post by Mary W. Moffat
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
*unlimted*, you fucking illiterate cunt-hair.
"murderred", "murderrer"
"abandonned"
"prisonner"
"bigotted"
"wonderred", "wonderring"
"happenned"
"mentionned"
"threatenning"
"biasses"
"edittor", "edittorial"
"marketting"
"civillian"
"Neighbourring"
"conquerred"
"deliverred"
"cowerring"
"sufferring"
"limitted"
"registerring"
"pardonned"
"developping"
"modelled"
"anchorred"
"uppitty"
"coverred"
"considerred"
"riotting"
"warmongerring"
"discoverred"
"botherred"
"biassed"
"conquerred"
"triggerred"
And now
"unlimitted"
Why do you work so hard at being a stupid shitbag?
PPPPS: SVBSCRIBE!!!1!!
--
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
fucking posts, read this fucking article, you fucking dipshit whiner:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm
Kadaitcha Man
2017-01-23 11:01:43 UTC
Permalink
Mary W. Moffat, if thou art changed to aught, tis to an ass. Ye
Post by Mary W. Moffat
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
*unlimted*, you fucking illiterate cunt-hair.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
PPPPPS: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Post by Mary W. Moffat
"murderred", "murderrer"
"abandonned"
"prisonner"
"bigotted"
"wonderred", "wonderring"
"happenned"
"mentionned"
"threatenning"
"biasses"
"edittor", "edittorial"
"marketting"
"civillian"
"Neighbourring"
"conquerred"
"deliverred"
"cowerring"
"sufferring"
"limitted"
"registerring"
"pardonned"
"developping"
"modelled"
"anchorred"
"uppitty"
"coverred"
"considerred"
"riotting"
"warmongerring"
"discoverred"
"botherred"
"biassed"
"conquerred"
"triggerred"
And now
"unlimitted"
Why do you work so hard at being a stupid shitbag?
--
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
fucking posts, read this fucking article, you fucking dipshit whiner:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm
Kadaitcha Man
2017-01-23 09:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mary W. Moffat
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
*unlimted*, you fucking illiterate cunt-hair.
"murderred", "murderrer"
"abandonned"
"prisonner"
"bigotted"
"wonderred", "wonderring"
"happenned"
"mentionned"
"threatenning"
"biasses"
"edittor", "edittorial"
"marketting"
"civillian"
"Neighbourring"
"conquerred"
"deliverred"
"cowerring"
"sufferring"
"limitted"
"registerring"
"pardonned"
"developping"
"modelled"
"anchorred"
"uppitty"
"coverred"
"considerred"
"riotting"
"warmongerring"
"discoverred"
"botherred"
"biassed"
"conquerred"
"triggerred"
And now
"unlimitted"
Why do you work so hard at being a stupid shitbag?
Wow! Looka t all that k0oKSCREED over a fucking typo!

PS: I left a typo there for you to pounce on. Foam away, k0oKy.

PPS: "biassed" and "biasses" are third-person singular simple past and
present indicative verbs, otherwise known as copular verbs.

HTH

PPPS: Foam on, K0oKTARD.
--
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
fucking posts, read this fucking article, you fucking dipshit whiner:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm
Checkmate, DoW #1
2017-01-24 08:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by Mary W. Moffat
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
*unlimted*, you fucking illiterate cunt-hair.
"murderred", "murderrer"
"abandonned"
"prisonner"
"bigotted"
"wonderred", "wonderring"
"happenned"
"mentionned"
"threatenning"
"biasses"
"edittor", "edittorial"
"marketting"
"civillian"
"Neighbourring"
"conquerred"
"deliverred"
"cowerring"
"sufferring"
"limitted"
"registerring"
"pardonned"
"developping"
"modelled"
"anchorred"
"uppitty"
"coverred"
"considerred"
"riotting"
"warmongerring"
"discoverred"
"botherred"
"biassed"
"conquerred"
"triggerred"
And now
"unlimitted"
Why do you work so hard at being a stupid shitbag?
Wow! Looka t all that k0oKSCREED over a fucking typo!
PS: I left a typo there for you to pounce on. Foam away, k0oKy.
PPS: "biassed" and "biasses" are third-person singular simple past and
present indicative verbs, otherwise known as copular verbs.
HTH
PPPS: Foam on, K0oKTARD.
"Copular" <giggle>
--
Checkmate, Royal Order of the DoW #1, and Official Ko0K Wrangler
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Vote (Post-Burnore)
Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker
award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll)
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012

Copyright © 2017
all rights reserved

Current Paul Derbyshire Hall of Shame:

Posting from IP 67.70.97.29, "Ben Bovista" says:

"I'd like to nominate this Checkmate goofwad for
January's Coward of the Month. And not *solely*
because the twit falsely accused me of being your
sock, without evidence"

MID: <f7043617-fb35-4f39-9baf-***@googlegroups.com>

Here's the evidence, right from his own reply:

IP: 67.70.97.29
Decimal: 1128685853
Hostname bas1-pembroke52-67-70-97-29.dsl.bell.ca
ASN: 577
ISP: Bell Canada
Organization: Bell Canada

LOL! What does that say, Paul? Does it say "Pembroke"?
Why yes... yes it does. You've outed yourself again,
you stupid moron!

https://youtu.be/sdyBYSuqQBQ
Kadaitcha Man
2017-01-24 09:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Checkmate, DoW #1, contemptuous foulspoken coward. Ye wood-headed wild
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by Mary W. Moffat
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
*unlimted*, you fucking illiterate cunt-hair.
"murderred", "murderrer"
"abandonned"
"prisonner"
"bigotted"
"wonderred", "wonderring"
"happenned"
"mentionned"
"threatenning"
"biasses"
"edittor", "edittorial"
"marketting"
"civillian"
"Neighbourring"
"conquerred"
"deliverred"
"cowerring"
"sufferring"
"limitted"
"registerring"
"pardonned"
"developping"
"modelled"
"anchorred"
"uppitty"
"coverred"
"considerred"
"riotting"
"warmongerring"
"discoverred"
"botherred"
"biassed"
"conquerred"
"triggerred"
And now
"unlimitted"
Why do you work so hard at being a stupid shitbag?
Wow! Looka t all that k0oKSCREED over a fucking typo!
PS: I left a typo there for you to pounce on. Foam away, k0oKy.
PPS: "biassed" and "biasses" are third-person singular simple past and
present indicative verbs, otherwise known as copular verbs.
HTH
PPPS: Foam on, K0oKTARD.
"Copular" <giggle>
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by Mary W. Moffat
*unlimted*, you fucking illiterate cunt-hair.
"*unlimted*"

LMAO
--
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
fucking posts, read this fucking article, you fucking dipshit whiner:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm
james g. keegan jr.
2017-01-24 16:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by Mary W. Moffat
So according to you there is no right to life.
There is no unlimitted right to life.
*unlimted*, you fucking illiterate cunt-hair.
"murderred", "murderrer"
"abandonned"
"prisonner"
"bigotted"
"wonderred", "wonderring"
"happenned"
"mentionned"
"threatenning"
"biasses"
"edittor", "edittorial"
"marketting"
"civillian"
"Neighbourring"
"conquerred"
"deliverred"
"cowerring"
"sufferring"
"limitted"
"registerring"
"pardonned"
"developping"
"modelled"
"anchorred"
"uppitty"
"coverred"
"considerred"
"riotting"
"warmongerring"
"discoverred"
"botherred"
"biassed"
"conquerred"
"triggerred"
And now
"unlimitted"
Why do you work so hard at being a stupid shitbag?
Wow! Looka t all that k0oKSCREED over a fucking typo!
It isn't a typo. Do you see the long and ever-lengthening list of words
in which this dumb cunt incorrectly doubles the ending consonant when
adding a suffix? She's fucking stupid. The rule has been explained to
her dozens of times. Her news client flags the word as incorrectly
spelled. She's just a dumb cunt, that's all.
Scout
2017-01-23 01:52:39 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:49:37 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:19:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:18:17 -0700, Just Wondering
That country was defined in the Constitution ...
Why then did the United States of America exist as a
country for years before the Constitution was drafted?
The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781 and
established the name of the new country as the United States
but the
details clearly show the name was not for a single political body
but
a confederation of independent States that had formed together to
present a united front in dealing with foreign governments. It
failed.
So the United States of America failed?
Define what you mean by "United States of America".
Wow, you don't even know what country you're talking about.
But tell me, do you think there is more than one United States of
America?
There were two.
Nope - only one. It changed its constitution.
Which we all note is a provision allowed in the current Constitution.
By "changed", I meant "replaced entirely."
Yep, and allowed by the current Constitution.
No provision for it in the Articles.
Tell that to the States that called for a Constitutional Convention.
There is a serious school of thought that says that, under the
Articles, what the drafters of the Constitution did was
unconstitutional.
Perhaps, but then again the intent of any Constitutional Convention is
to make any and all changes necessary.
The "Federal convention" was not intended to be a complete constitutiona
convention.
Depends on who you ask. Some expected it to be.

The end result is anytime you have a Constitutional Convention, anything or
everything can be changed, altered, modified, or simply thrown out.

It's then up to the states to decide if they will ratify the result.

The states ratified it.

End of story.
They had no mandate (yes!) to replace the Articles.
Agreed, yet the states didn't need to ratify it if they found it utterly
objectionable, or felt the delegates exceeded their authority.
Yet the states did ratify it, and thus the Articles of Confederation
were replaced by the US Constitution and the nation changed how it's
central government was formed and functioned.
The states didn't ratify it in accord with the specification for
amendments in the Articles.
Actually they did, since eventually every state ratified it.

However, since it wasn't an Amendment for the Articles, but rather a
replacement, they didn't need to follow the specification set for Amendments
in the Articles.

See that's why a Constitutional Convention is such a double edged sword,
they can make changes you wanted, or they can do something else entirely.
It wasn't unanimously ratified when it was declared adopted. That's
unconstitutional.
Not according to the Constitution.

Article VII

The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for
the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the
same.

You will note the Constitution only applied if at least 9 states ratified
it, and then ONLY to the states that ratified it.

Hardly improper.

9 states ratified it, those 9 states adopted it, and eventually every other
state ratified and adopted it.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 02:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:49:37 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:19:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:18:17 -0700, Just Wondering
That country was defined in the Constitution ...
Why then did the United States of America exist as a
country for years before the Constitution was drafted?
The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781 and
established the name of the new country as the United States
but the
details clearly show the name was not for a single political body
but
a confederation of independent States that had formed together to
present a united front in dealing with foreign governments. It
failed.
So the United States of America failed?
Define what you mean by "United States of America".
Wow, you don't even know what country you're talking about.
But tell me, do you think there is more than one United States of
America?
There were two.
Nope - only one. It changed its constitution.
Which we all note is a provision allowed in the current Constitution.
By "changed", I meant "replaced entirely."
Yep, and allowed by the current Constitution.
No provision for it in the Articles.
Tell that to the States that called for a Constitutional Convention.
The mandate - yes! - was not to write an entirely new constitution.
Post by Scout
There is a serious school of thought that says that, under the
Articles, what the drafters of the Constitution did was
unconstitutional.
Perhaps, but then again the intent of any Constitutional Convention is
to make any and all changes necessary.
The "Federal convention" was not intended to be a complete
constitutional convention.
Depends on who you ask.
No, it doesn't.

You're lying out your ass now - making it up as you go along.
Scout
2017-01-23 03:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:49:37 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:19:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:18:17 -0700, Just Wondering
That country was defined in the Constitution ...
Why then did the United States of America exist as a
country for years before the Constitution was drafted?
The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781 and
established the name of the new country as the United States
but the
details clearly show the name was not for a single political body
but
a confederation of independent States that had formed together to
present a united front in dealing with foreign governments. It
failed.
So the United States of America failed?
Define what you mean by "United States of America".
Wow, you don't even know what country you're talking about.
But tell me, do you think there is more than one United States of
America?
There were two.
Nope - only one. It changed its constitution.
Which we all note is a provision allowed in the current Constitution.
By "changed", I meant "replaced entirely."
Yep, and allowed by the current Constitution.
No provision for it in the Articles.
Tell that to the States that called for a Constitutional Convention.
The mandate - yes! - was not to write an entirely new constitution.
Post by Scout
There is a serious school of thought that says that, under the
Articles, what the drafters of the Constitution did was
unconstitutional.
Perhaps, but then again the intent of any Constitutional Convention is
to make any and all changes necessary.
The "Federal convention" was not intended to be a complete
constitutional convention.
Depends on who you ask.
No, it doesn't.
Check the historical facts.

Oh, that's right, you don't do facts.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 04:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:49:37 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:19:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:18:17 -0700, Just Wondering
That country was defined in the Constitution ...
Why then did the United States of America exist as a
country for years before the Constitution was drafted?
The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781 and
established the name of the new country as the United States
but the
details clearly show the name was not for a single political body
but
a confederation of independent States that had formed together to
present a united front in dealing with foreign
governments. It
failed.
So the United States of America failed?
Define what you mean by "United States of America".
Wow, you don't even know what country you're talking about.
But tell me, do you think there is more than one United States of
America?
There were two.
Nope - only one. It changed its constitution.
Which we all note is a provision allowed in the current
Constitution.
By "changed", I meant "replaced entirely."
Yep, and allowed by the current Constitution.
No provision for it in the Articles.
Tell that to the States that called for a Constitutional Convention.
The mandate - yes! - was not to write an entirely new constitution.
Post by Scout
There is a serious school of thought that says that, under the
Articles, what the drafters of the Constitution did was
unconstitutional.
Perhaps, but then again the intent of any Constitutional Convention is
to make any and all changes necessary.
The "Federal convention" was not intended to be a complete
constitutional convention.
Depends on who you ask.
No, it doesn't.
Check the historical facts.
You do that, boy. You'll lose, again.
Scout
2017-01-23 04:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:49:37 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:19:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:18:17 -0700, Just Wondering
That country was defined in the Constitution ...
Why then did the United States of America exist as a
country for years before the Constitution was drafted?
The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781 and
established the name of the new country as the United States
but the
details clearly show the name was not for a single political body
but
a confederation of independent States that had formed together to
present a united front in dealing with foreign
governments. It
failed.
So the United States of America failed?
Define what you mean by "United States of America".
Wow, you don't even know what country you're talking about.
But tell me, do you think there is more than one United States of
America?
There were two.
Nope - only one. It changed its constitution.
Which we all note is a provision allowed in the current
Constitution.
By "changed", I meant "replaced entirely."
Yep, and allowed by the current Constitution.
No provision for it in the Articles.
Tell that to the States that called for a Constitutional Convention.
The mandate - yes! - was not to write an entirely new constitution.
Post by Scout
There is a serious school of thought that says that, under the
Articles, what the drafters of the Constitution did was
unconstitutional.
Perhaps, but then again the intent of any Constitutional Convention is
to make any and all changes necessary.
The "Federal convention" was not intended to be a complete
constitutional convention.
Depends on who you ask.
No, it doesn't.
Check the historical facts.
You do that, boy. You'll lose, again.
Rudy admits he's afraid to found out he's wrong.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 05:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:49:37 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:19:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:18:17 -0700, Just Wondering
That country was defined in the Constitution ...
Why then did the United States of America exist as a
country for years before the Constitution was drafted?
The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781 and
established the name of the new country as the United States
but the
details clearly show the name was not for a single political
body
but
a confederation of independent States that had formed
together to
present a united front in dealing with foreign
governments. It
failed.
So the United States of America failed?
Define what you mean by "United States of America".
Wow, you don't even know what country you're talking about.
But tell me, do you think there is more than one United States of
America?
There were two.
Nope - only one. It changed its constitution.
Which we all note is a provision allowed in the current Constitution.
By "changed", I meant "replaced entirely."
Yep, and allowed by the current Constitution.
No provision for it in the Articles.
Tell that to the States that called for a Constitutional Convention.
The mandate - yes! - was not to write an entirely new constitution.
Post by Scout
There is a serious school of thought that says that, under the
Articles, what the drafters of the Constitution did was
unconstitutional.
Perhaps, but then again the intent of any Constitutional
Convention is
to make any and all changes necessary.
The "Federal convention" was not intended to be a complete
constitutional convention.
Depends on who you ask.
No, it doesn't.
Check the historical facts.
You do that, boy. You'll lose, again.
Rudy admits
No.
Kevrob
2017-01-23 23:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:49:37 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:19:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:18:17 -0700, Just Wondering
That country was defined in the Constitution ...
Why then did the United States of America exist as a
country for years before the Constitution was drafted?
The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781 and
established the name of the new country as the United States
but the
details clearly show the name was not for a single political body
but
a confederation of independent States that had formed together to
present a united front in dealing with foreign governments. It
failed.
So the United States of America failed?
Define what you mean by "United States of America".
Wow, you don't even know what country you're talking about.
But tell me, do you think there is more than one United States of
America?
There were two.
Nope - only one. It changed its constitution.
Which we all note is a provision allowed in the current Constitution.
By "changed", I meant "replaced entirely."
Yep, and allowed by the current Constitution.
No provision for it in the Articles.
Tell that to the States that called for a Constitutional Convention.
There is a serious school of thought that says that, under the
Articles, what the drafters of the Constitution did was
unconstitutional.
Perhaps, but then again the intent of any Constitutional Convention is
to make any and all changes necessary.
The "Federal convention" was not intended to be a complete constitutiona
convention.
Depends on who you ask. Some expected it to be.
The end result is anytime you have a Constitutional Convention, anything or
everything can be changed, altered, modified, or simply thrown out.
It's then up to the states to decide if they will ratify the result.
The states ratified it.
End of story.
They had no mandate (yes!) to replace the Articles.
Agreed, yet the states didn't need to ratify it if they found it utterly
objectionable, or felt the delegates exceeded their authority.
Yet the states did ratify it, and thus the Articles of Confederation
were replaced by the US Constitution and the nation changed how it's
central government was formed and functioned.
The states didn't ratify it in accord with the specification for
amendments in the Articles.
Actually they did, since eventually every state ratified it.
However, since it wasn't an Amendment for the Articles, but rather a
replacement, they didn't need to follow the specification set for Amendments
in the Articles.
See that's why a Constitutional Convention is such a double edged sword,
they can make changes you wanted, or they can do something else entirely.
It wasn't unanimously ratified when it was declared adopted. That's
unconstitutional.
No, it was Constitutional, but.....

In an entirely unrelated thread, in another group, back at the tail
end of the last century, I once posted:

[quote]

In my more curmudgeonly moments I gripe that the "so-called
constitution" violated the amending procedures of the Articles
of Confederation, and so the whole "Federal Government" is
"Un-Articular!"

[/quote]

AoC: XIII

[quote]

And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably
observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual;
nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in
any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress
of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the
legislatures of every State.

[/quote]

Unanimity required for any amendments: plain as day.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp
Post by Scout
Not according to the Constitution.
Article VII
The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for
the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the
same.
You will note the Constitution only applied if at least 9 states ratified
it, and then ONLY to the states that ratified it.
Hardly improper.
9 states ratified it, those 9 states adopted it, and eventually every other
state ratified and adopted it.
Essentially, those 9 state seceded from USA 1.0, and formed USA 2.0, with
the other 4 states joining up later. RI held out for a year.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/this-day-in-politics-107177

Kevin R
Scout
2017-01-23 01:58:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:58:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has
been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life without
a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Just as they can take possession of your person via enslavement.
That is prohibited by the Constitution.
And WHERE exactly is it prohibited?
Thirteenth amendment.
"Article XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
Involuntary servitude.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 02:56:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:58:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has
been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life
without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Just as they can take possession of your person via enslavement.
That is prohibited by the Constitution.
And WHERE exactly is it prohibited?
Thirteenth amendment.
"Article XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
Involuntary servitude.
As I said ;-)
Scout
2017-01-23 03:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:58:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has
been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life
without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Just as they can take possession of your person via enslavement.
That is prohibited by the Constitution.
And WHERE exactly is it prohibited?
Thirteenth amendment.
"Article XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
Involuntary servitude.
As I said ;-)
Nothing relevant to your assertion.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 04:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 18:58:08 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:17:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:52:07 -0500, "Scout"
{snip}
So according to you there is no right to life.
I have yet to see one.
There is the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment which has
been
interpreted such that the government cannot take your life
without a
very good reason.
But it can take it.
Just as they can take possession of your person via enslavement.
That is prohibited by the Constitution.
And WHERE exactly is it prohibited?
Thirteenth amendment.
"Article XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
Involuntary servitude.
As I said ;-)
Nothing relevant
Fully relevant.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:05:38 UTC
Permalink
{snip}
On the contrary, everyone willing to read exactly what it says all
reach
the same meaning.
As evidence by the discussion in this newsgroup, no. Also consider
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/55-3-2.pdf
"This Article is about the hidden complexity of the textual exception
to
the
Thirteenth Amendment. The amendment mandates that there shall be no
slavery “except as a punishment for crime.” "
Thus your own cite supports my assertions about the meaning and
allowances of the 13th Amendment.
The author's particular viewpoint may (or may not) match yours, but
the article presents various plausible viewpoints. That's enough to
demonstrate there is no consensus.
No, as far as the meaning of the 13th, the author presents ONE and ONLY
ONE meaning for the 13th.
The various viewpoints exist on how the 13th is, should, or was applied.
Not what it says.
I think those applications - particularly the prison guard as slave
owner - gover rise to different interpretations of the text.
No, more likely judges being unwilling to accept what it says and apply it
in that manner.

After all, I think it's clear that no person can make another person a
slave, no matter how you try to read the 13th. So clearly any judges that
say otherwise aren't dealing with a different interpretation, but rather a
denial and/or refusal to accept and apply the 13th.

The only case in which one can be enslaved under the 13th is as a court
ordered sentence after being found guilty of a crime.

What is happening to those prisoners is NOTHING the court ordered as part of
their sentence.
As I noted the complexity is an artifact of the courts...NOT the
Amendment.
And as I noted, the courts don't have a consensus that the Amendment is
simple.
So, you're saying the 13th allows for the enslavement of people even though
not as a punishment for crime?

That is what you're saying if you're claiming that what those courts say has
any valid basis on the language of the 13th Amendment.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-23 03:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
{snip}
On the contrary, everyone willing to read exactly what it says all
reach
the same meaning.
As evidence by the discussion in this newsgroup, no. Also consider
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/55-3-2.pdf
"This Article is about the hidden complexity of the textual
exception to
the
Thirteenth Amendment. The amendment mandates that there shall be no
slavery “except as a punishment for crime.” "
Thus your own cite supports my assertions about the meaning and
allowances of the 13th Amendment.
The author's particular viewpoint may (or may not) match yours, but
the article presents various plausible viewpoints. That's enough to
demonstrate there is no consensus.
No, as far as the meaning of the 13th, the author presents ONE and ONLY
ONE meaning for the 13th.
The various viewpoints exist on how the 13th is, should, or was applied.
Not what it says.
I think those applications - particularly the prison guard as slave
owner - gover rise to different interpretations of the text.
No, more likely judges being unwilling to accept what it says and apply
it in that manner.
After all, I think it's clear that no person can make another person a
slave, no matter how you try to read the 13th. So clearly any judges
that say otherwise aren't dealing with a different interpretation, but
rather a denial and/or refusal to accept and apply the 13th.
The only case in which one can be enslaved under the 13th is as a court
ordered sentence after being found guilty of a crime.
What is happening to those prisoners is NOTHING the court ordered as
part of their sentence.
As I noted the complexity is an artifact of the courts...NOT the
Amendment.
And as I noted, the courts don't have a consensus that the Amendment
is simple.
So, you're saying the 13th allows for the enslavement of people even
though not as a punishment for crime?
Of course not. The question being debated is whether the 13th permits
the government to have chattel slavery - distinguished from involuntary
servitude - as a punishment for a crime. That issue is not settled.
Post by Scout
That is what you're saying if you're claiming that what those courts say
has any valid basis on the language of the 13th Amendment.
Scout
2017-01-23 04:19:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Scout
{snip}
On the contrary, everyone willing to read exactly what it says all
reach
the same meaning.
As evidence by the discussion in this newsgroup, no. Also consider
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/55-3-2.pdf
"This Article is about the hidden complexity of the textual
exception to
the
Thirteenth Amendment. The amendment mandates that there shall be no
slavery “except as a punishment for crime.” "
Thus your own cite supports my assertions about the meaning and
allowances of the 13th Amendment.
The author's particular viewpoint may (or may not) match yours, but
the article presents various plausible viewpoints. That's enough to
demonstrate there is no consensus.
No, as far as the meaning of the 13th, the author presents ONE and ONLY
ONE meaning for the 13th.
The various viewpoints exist on how the 13th is, should, or was applied.
Not what it says.
I think those applications - particularly the prison guard as slave
owner - gover rise to different interpretations of the text.
No, more likely judges being unwilling to accept what it says and apply
it in that manner.
After all, I think it's clear that no person can make another person a
slave, no matter how you try to read the 13th. So clearly any judges
that say otherwise aren't dealing with a different interpretation, but
rather a denial and/or refusal to accept and apply the 13th.
The only case in which one can be enslaved under the 13th is as a court
ordered sentence after being found guilty of a crime.
What is happening to those prisoners is NOTHING the court ordered as
part of their sentence.
As I noted the complexity is an artifact of the courts...NOT the
Amendment.
And as I noted, the courts don't have a consensus that the Amendment
is simple.
So, you're saying the 13th allows for the enslavement of people even
though not as a punishment for crime?
Of course not.
Then a consensus exists, and the sexual slavery that may exist in prisons is
a violation of their rights.

Now whether you can get the courts and the judges to apply the 13th to that
issue as it should be is another subject, and the source of any
'complexity'. Not the Amendment or it's meaning.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The question being debated is whether the 13th permits the government to
have chattel slavery - distinguished from involuntary servitude - as a
punishment for a crime. That issue is not settled.
On the contrary, per your own source, the issue is settled. Read the opening
again.

The rest of the report is about whether sexual slavery and such in prison is
allowed under the 13th since it's not a sentence imposed by the court.

As stated.

If the court sentenced you to serve as Bubba's sex slave. That would be
Constitutional under the 13th.
If Bubba forced you to become his sex slave. That would be Unconstitutional
under the 13th.

One is the sentence of a court for a crime, the other is not.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Scout
That is what you're saying if you're claiming that what those courts say
has any valid basis on the language of the 13th Amendment.
And thus by your admission above, it's clear that slavery imposed by a
person on another person is Unconstitutional.

The complexity comes from courts either ignoring the issue or trying to
dismiss it from consideration.

The complexity is an artifact of the courts....not the Amendment or it's
meaning.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 04:26:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Scout
{snip}
On the contrary, everyone willing to read exactly what it says all
reach
the same meaning.
As evidence by the discussion in this newsgroup, no. Also consider
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/55-3-2.pdf
"This Article is about the hidden complexity of the textual
exception to
the
Thirteenth Amendment. The amendment mandates that there shall be no
slavery “except as a punishment for crime.” "
Thus your own cite supports my assertions about the meaning and
allowances of the 13th Amendment.
The author's particular viewpoint may (or may not) match yours, but
the article presents various plausible viewpoints. That's enough to
demonstrate there is no consensus.
No, as far as the meaning of the 13th, the author presents ONE and ONLY
ONE meaning for the 13th.
The various viewpoints exist on how the 13th is, should, or was applied.
Not what it says.
I think those applications - particularly the prison guard as slave
owner - gover rise to different interpretations of the text.
No, more likely judges being unwilling to accept what it says and apply
it in that manner.
After all, I think it's clear that no person can make another person a
slave, no matter how you try to read the 13th. So clearly any judges
that say otherwise aren't dealing with a different interpretation, but
rather a denial and/or refusal to accept and apply the 13th.
The only case in which one can be enslaved under the 13th is as a court
ordered sentence after being found guilty of a crime.
What is happening to those prisoners is NOTHING the court ordered as
part of their sentence.
As I noted the complexity is an artifact of the courts...NOT the
Amendment.
And as I noted, the courts don't have a consensus that the Amendment
is simple.
So, you're saying the 13th allows for the enslavement of people even
though not as a punishment for crime?
Of course not.
Then a consensus exists, and
Yes: no slavery. Involuntary servitude *only*. Prisoners are never
legally slaves.
Just Wondering
2017-01-23 08:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Scout
{snip}
On the contrary, everyone willing to read exactly what it says all
reach
the same meaning.
As evidence by the discussion in this newsgroup, no. Also consider
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/55-3-2.pdf
"This Article is about the hidden complexity of the textual
exception to
the
Thirteenth Amendment. The amendment mandates that there shall be no
slavery “except as a punishment for crime.” "
Thus your own cite supports my assertions about the meaning and
allowances of the 13th Amendment.
The author's particular viewpoint may (or may not) match yours, but
the article presents various plausible viewpoints. That's enough to
demonstrate there is no consensus.
No, as far as the meaning of the 13th, the author presents ONE and ONLY
ONE meaning for the 13th.
The various viewpoints exist on how the 13th is, should, or was applied.
Not what it says.
I think those applications - particularly the prison guard as slave
owner - gover rise to different interpretations of the text.
No, more likely judges being unwilling to accept what it says and apply
it in that manner.
After all, I think it's clear that no person can make another person a
slave, no matter how you try to read the 13th. So clearly any judges
that say otherwise aren't dealing with a different interpretation, but
rather a denial and/or refusal to accept and apply the 13th.
The only case in which one can be enslaved under the 13th is as a court
ordered sentence after being found guilty of a crime.
What is happening to those prisoners is NOTHING the court ordered as
part of their sentence.
As I noted the complexity is an artifact of the courts...NOT the
Amendment.
And as I noted, the courts don't have a consensus that the Amendment
is simple.
So, you're saying the 13th allows for the enslavement of people even
though not as a punishment for crime?
Of course not.
Then a consensus exists, and
Yes: no slavery. Involuntary servitude *only*. Prisoners are never
legally slaves.
If you're the one put to forced labor and restricted freedom, it really
doesn't make a lot of difference what label people put on it.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-01-23 04:36:19 UTC
Permalink
{snip}
Post by Scout
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The question being debated is whether the 13th permits the government
to have chattel slavery - distinguished from involuntary servitude -
as a punishment for a crime. That issue is not settled.
On the contrary, per your own source, the issue is settled. Read the
opening again.
He does not say his viewpoint is settled law. He presents other
viewpoints. For example in the section on original understanding he
writes that Congressman Kasson claimed:

"The punishment clause [...] meant that a freeman can be condemned by
the law only to the involuntary servitude now existing within the United
States, within the walls of prisons, and within the jurisdiction of the
law and officers of the law."
Post by Scout
If the court sentenced you to serve as Bubba's sex slave. That would be
Constitutional under the 13th.
That's not settled law.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Which exist in dictionaries.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 02:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Which exist in dictionaries.
No, the one used in American political discourse doesn't seem to exist
in dictionaries.
Scout
2017-01-23 03:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Which exist in dictionaries.
No, the one used in American political discourse doesn't seem to exist in
dictionaries.
So just because they use a word in a manner inconsistent with it's meaning
does NOT mean that everyone has to accept their misuse of the word or their
made up definition.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 04:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Which exist in dictionaries.
No, the one used in American political discourse doesn't seem to exist
in dictionaries.
So just because they use a word in a manner inconsistent with
They use the word, scooter, as I have said all literate political
commentators use it. I'm right.
Scout
2017-01-23 04:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Which exist in dictionaries.
No, the one used in American political discourse doesn't seem to exist
in dictionaries.
So just because they use a word in a manner inconsistent with
They use the word, scooter, as I have said all literate political
commentators use it. I'm right.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/28/donald-trumps-political-mandate-is-historically-small/?utm_term=.7e5448c4c94b

http://time.com/4564256/donald-trump-mandate/

Another of your lies goes up in smoke.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 05:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
Slavery is legal
No, not in the US it isn't.
Involuntary servitude is not slavery.
Slavery is a property status.
You refer to "chattel slavery", which is the traditional,
classical meaning of the word. You are free to confine
your discussion to chattel slavery, however, the meaning
of words can and does change from time to time.
Tell that to scooter regarding "mandate."
Feel free to produce any such definition from an authoritative
dictionary.
I've instructed you on this already: dictionaries are of no help.
Thus your definition is made up
No. It's one that literate people know and use.
Which exist in dictionaries.
No, the one used in American political discourse doesn't seem to exist
in dictionaries.
So just because they use a word in a manner inconsistent with
They use the word, scooter, as I have said all literate political
commentators use it. I'm right.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/28/donald-trumps-political-mandate-is-historically-small/?utm_term=.7e5448c4c94b
Agrees with what I said.

No mandate.
Scout
2017-01-23 02:13:17 UTC
Permalink
{snip}
Wrong. In our system, anything not defined to be illegal
is presumed to be legal.
This is the original meaning of "the exception that proves the
rule".
That's not the original meaning of the saying, and
it's a stupid saying anyway. It's a simple fact that
exceptions to rules do not prove those rules. In fact,
it's more likely that an exception will disprove a rule.
That's wrong. *An* exception by itself doesn't necessarily disprove a
rule. A whole spate of them might.
Anyway, you're right about the obnoxious little sophomore being wrong
about the original meaning of the figure of speech.
What was its original meaning (with citations, please)?
LOL!
Expecting you to know what you're talking about
I always do, else I don't post.
Lying again, I see.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 03:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
{snip}
Wrong. In our system, anything not defined to be illegal
is presumed to be legal.
This is the original meaning of "the exception that proves the
rule".
That's not the original meaning of the saying, and
it's a stupid saying anyway. It's a simple fact that
exceptions to rules do not prove those rules. In fact,
it's more likely that an exception will disprove a rule.
That's wrong. *An* exception by itself doesn't necessarily disprove a
rule. A whole spate of them might.
Anyway, you're right about the obnoxious little sophomore being wrong
about the original meaning of the figure of speech.
What was its original meaning (with citations, please)?
LOL!
Expecting you to know what you're talking about
I always do, else I don't post.
Lying again
No.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/views-you-can-use/articles/2016-11-09/does-president-elect-donald-trump-have-a-mandate
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/views-you-can-use/articles/2016-11-09/does-president-elect-donald-trump-have-a-mandate
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/17/13658374/trump-mandate-history-presidential-politics
Scout
2017-01-23 02:15:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:21:50 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:19:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted criminals as
part
of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery.
No one said it was. Now do you have something relevant to
aid, or
simply
this display of your ignorance of the facts?
Why was the comment "Some states have outlawed slavery under
all
circumstances." made?
Pointlessly. Slavery is outlawed in the U.S. - full stop.
Involuntary servitude is not.
Which to believe.... the 13th Amendment, or Rudy?
My correct interpretation of what the thirteenth amendment reads.
A correct interpretation wouldn't have to change what's there.
I didn't change a word of it.
But you did make changes to the punctuation.
No, the punctuation in the amendment is what it is. I said what the
implied punctuation is.
Sorry, there is no implied punctuation.
There is. There also is the unfortunate matter of the conjunction used.
Unfortunate because it makes it harder for you to assert that the
language says something other than it does?
No, because what you need is a positive statement with an "and".
So unless it's slavery AND involuntary servitude only then would the 13th
apply?

So if you were merely subjected only to involuntary servitude, then that
would be Constitutional, no matter under what circumstances?

I suggest you think about what you just asserted before you continue in this
line of 'reasoning'
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 03:08:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:21:50 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:19:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted
criminals as
part
of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery.
No one said it was. Now do you have something relevant to
aid, or
simply
this display of your ignorance of the facts?
Why was the comment "Some states have outlawed slavery
under all
circumstances." made?
Pointlessly. Slavery is outlawed in the U.S. - full stop.
Involuntary servitude is not.
Which to believe.... the 13th Amendment, or Rudy?
My correct interpretation of what the thirteenth amendment reads.
A correct interpretation wouldn't have to change what's there.
I didn't change a word of it.
But you did make changes to the punctuation.
No, the punctuation in the amendment is what it is. I said what the
implied punctuation is.
Sorry, there is no implied punctuation.
There is. There also is the unfortunate matter of the conjunction used.
Unfortunate because it makes it harder for you to assert that the
language says something other than it does?
No, because what you need is a positive statement with an "and".
So unless it's slavery AND involuntary servitude only
AND is what is needed for the thirteenth amendment to countenance both
with its exception clause.
Scout
2017-01-23 03:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:21:50 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:19:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted
criminals as
part
of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery.
No one said it was. Now do you have something relevant to
aid, or
simply
this display of your ignorance of the facts?
Why was the comment "Some states have outlawed slavery
under all
circumstances." made?
Pointlessly. Slavery is outlawed in the U.S. - full stop.
Involuntary servitude is not.
Which to believe.... the 13th Amendment, or Rudy?
My correct interpretation of what the thirteenth amendment reads.
A correct interpretation wouldn't have to change what's there.
I didn't change a word of it.
But you did make changes to the punctuation.
No, the punctuation in the amendment is what it is. I said what the
implied punctuation is.
Sorry, there is no implied punctuation.
There is. There also is the unfortunate matter of the conjunction used.
Unfortunate because it makes it harder for you to assert that the
language says something other than it does?
No, because what you need is a positive statement with an "and".
So unless it's slavery AND involuntary servitude only
AND is what is needed for the thirteenth amendment to countenance both
with its exception clause.
Hardly, and as pointed out above would allow slavery or involuntary
servitude to exist without limit.

But let's try your analysis.

'A player may not use a baseball and a football in a game, unless allowed by
the rules of the game.'

Which means as long as the player uses either a baseball or a football but
not both, then it's use would be allowed within any game.

That's how YOUR conjunction would work. Slavery would be legal. Involuntary
Servitude would be legal. Only slavery involving involuntary servitude would
be illegal unless imposed as a punishment for crime.

And you call yourself literate.....
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 04:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Scout
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:21:50 -0500, "Scout"
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:19:01 -0800, Siri Cruise
in alt.atheism with message-id
So if a person is legally a slave
Not possible under our laws.
It most certainly is ENTIRELY possible under our laws.
Ref 13th Amendment.
It is legal in federal law to enslave convicted
criminals as
part
of their
punishment. Some states have outlawed slavery under all
circumstances.
Incarnation is not slavery.
No one said it was. Now do you have something relevant to
aid, or
simply
this display of your ignorance of the facts?
Why was the comment "Some states have outlawed slavery
under all
circumstances." made?
Pointlessly. Slavery is outlawed in the U.S. - full stop.
Involuntary servitude is not.
Which to believe.... the 13th Amendment, or Rudy?
My correct interpretation of what the thirteenth amendment reads.
A correct interpretation wouldn't have to change what's there.
I didn't change a word of it.
But you did make changes to the punctuation.
No, the punctuation in the amendment is what it is. I said what the
implied punctuation is.
Sorry, there is no implied punctuation.
There is. There also is the unfortunate matter of the conjunction used.
Unfortunate because it makes it harder for you to assert that the
language says something other than it does?
No, because what you need is a positive statement with an "and".
So unless it's slavery AND involuntary servitude only
AND is what is needed for the thirteenth amendment to countenance both
with its exception clause.
Hardly,
Fully.
Kadaitcha Man
2017-01-23 06:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Scout, ye are rough and hairy. Thou art a decayed monstrous
malefactor, a mindless infecter of minds, a hot-headed very devil
Scout, thou have as little honesty as honour. Ye are a humourless
bawler, a ruttish herd of boils and plagues, a cack-handed infected
Says the man who shows he has NO honor.
LMAO - I put words in your tiny pin-head.
--
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
fucking posts, read this fucking article, you fucking dipshit whiner:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-23 06:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Scout, ye are rough and hairy. Thou art a decayed monstrous
malefactor, a mindless infecter of minds, a hot-headed very devil
Scout, thou have as little honesty as honour. Ye are a humourless
bawler, a ruttish herd of boils and plagues, a cack-handed infected
Says the man who shows he has NO honor.
LMAO - I put words in your tiny pin-head.
Little scooter is a sophist - he admits it. Not only a sophist - a
sophomoric sophist, which he also admits.
Camarillo Brillo
2017-01-23 22:05:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kadaitcha Man
LMAO - I put words in your tiny pin-head.
Hey nose-bone, go drink some caustic lye.
Camarillo Brillo
2017-01-23 22:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kadaitcha Man
LMAO - I put words in your tiny pin-head.
--
Go drink some caustic lye, nose bone.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-01-24 01:11:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:49:37 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:19:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:18:17 -0700, Just Wondering
That country was defined in the Constitution ...
Why then did the United States of America exist as a
country for years before the Constitution was drafted?
The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781 and
established the name of the new country as the United States
but the
details clearly show the name was not for a single political body
but
a confederation of independent States that had formed together to
present a united front in dealing with foreign governments. It
failed.
So the United States of America failed?
Define what you mean by "United States of America".
Wow, you don't even know what country you're talking about.
But tell me, do you think there is more than one United States of
America?
There were two.
Nope - only one. It changed its constitution.
Which we all note is a provision allowed in the current Constitution.
By "changed", I meant "replaced entirely."
Yep, and allowed by the current Constitution.
No provision for it in the Articles.
There is a serious school of thought that says that, under the
Articles, what the drafters of the Constitution did was unconstitutional.
Perhaps, but then again the intent of any Constitutional Convention is
to make any and all changes necessary.
The "Federal convention" was not intended to be a complete constitutiona
convention.
That's why it will be a long time before another one is convened.
They had no mandate (yes!) to replace the Articles.
Agreed, yet the states didn't need to ratify it if they found it utterly
objectionable, or felt the delegates exceeded their authority.
Yet the states did ratify it, and thus the Articles of Confederation
were replaced by the US Constitution and the nation changed how it's
central government was formed and functioned.
The states didn't ratify it in accord with the specification for
amendments in the Articles. It wasn't unanimously ratified when it was
declared adopted. That's unconstitutional.
You really are an idiot. Every state ratified it. It's over. It's the law of the land no matter how many times the 2 main political parties try to fuck with it.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-01-24 01:18:51 UTC
Permalink
But tell me, do you think there is more than one
United States of America?
There were two.
Nope - only one. It changed its constitution.
Which we all note is a provision allowed in the current Constitution.
By "changed", I meant "replaced entirely." There is a serious school of
thought that says that, under the Articles, what the drafters of the
Constitution did was unconstitutional. They had no mandate (yes!) to
replace the Articles. Also, the Articles specified that any amendments
had to be ratified *unanimously* by the states, but the Constitution was
declared adopted before all states had ratified it. That looks
unconstitutional to me.
The Articles of Confederation were not a Constitution,
Were.
And they were a complete cluster fuck. That's why the founders decided to throw them out and come up with something far better and made sure that the individual was who should be protected. Yes, some unfortunate compromises were made, but they were made with the intention of getting all the states to agree on a better set of laws. Eventually, a war was fought and the compromises were thrown out. Still, it took about another 100 years to get to a point where all people are equal under the law. We can argue about how the law is enforced, but that does not change that everyone in this country is afforded the same legal rights.
The BORG
2017-01-24 03:28:10 UTC
Permalink
The Official Universal or Higher Level RULE on Life is that people are
NOT allowed to kill other people under ANY circumstances.
And that does include abortion.

Killing others is WRONG.

This also extends to animals, and people are not allowed to kill
animals or birds or fish.

The ONLY exception to this Rule is that Men are allowed to kill
certain animals and fish in order to eat Meat because Men have to have
meat in their diet.
Women should be vegetarian as they do NOT require meat in their diet.

Men are allowed to kill cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens and fish but no
other animals.

There are grey areas such as if you "accidentally" kill someone in
self defense.

But under Universal Law, killing other people is ALWAYS Wrong.

There is another Exception in that Men are allowed to kill other Men
in Honourable War. But the War must be Honourable and the Men must
know about Reincarnation.

But you cannot have Honourable War on Earth because women have
interfered in Army and War and other similar places.

And you cannot do WAR with women.

So Earth cannot have the exception with regard to Honourable War
because you cannot have Honourable War when you have women.

Honour is one of Many things that Men know about, that women have not
a clue about because they are not Men and they have not Evolved and
Developed as Men.

You must let Universal Justice take it's course.
If anyone is really BAD and they do things that are very Wrong then
they WLL suffer, and they WILL have a Price to pay and they WILL be
punished.

You MUST TRUST JUSTICE.

But if you take Justice into your own hands and kill another person,
then YOU have done something Wrong.
The BORG
2017-01-24 03:51:33 UTC
Permalink
There are three kinds of Life.

1. None movable Life. Plants, trees, flowers etc.
These are deemed to be part of Creation and if you harm any flowers or
cut down trees then you are harming Creation, but they are not classed
as "living things" in themselves.

2. Movable animal Life. These are birds and animals and fish, and
you must not cause suffering to this kind of life and you must not
kill them except the example we mentioned where Men are allowed to
kill certain animals for meat. You must NOT have pets, pet-keeping is
classed as "cruelty to animals" and carries the associated
punishments. And of course you must not do animal experiments or
cause any distress or suffering to any animals.

3. People life. These are Men and women. Men are Dominant and
Superior to the women. Women are secondary and inferior and lesser to
the Men. They always have been and things certainly ain't going to
change now.

There are other things such as insects, flies, wasps, pestilences
bacteria and other unpleasant stuff, but they are not actually "life"
and were caused by feminism and came from the corruptions of the women
when the women interfered in Men Only places.

When Evil rises.
Bad things happen.
duke
2017-01-24 18:20:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:49:37 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:19:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:18:17 -0700, Just Wondering
That country was defined in the Constitution ...
Why then did the United States of America exist as a
country for years before the Constitution was drafted?
The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781 and
established the name of the new country as the United States
but the
details clearly show the name was not for a single political body
but
a confederation of independent States that had formed together to
present a united front in dealing with foreign governments. It
failed.
So the United States of America failed?
Define what you mean by "United States of America".
Wow, you don't even know what country you're talking about.
But tell me, do you think there is more than one United States of
America?
There were two.
Nope - only one. It changed its constitution.
Which we all note is a provision allowed in the current Constitution.
By "changed", I meant "replaced entirely."
Yep, and allowed by the current Constitution.
No provision for it in the Articles.
There is a serious school of thought that says that, under the
Articles, what the drafters of the Constitution did was unconstitutional.
Perhaps, but then again the intent of any Constitutional Convention is
to make any and all changes necessary.
The "Federal convention" was not intended to be a complete constitutiona
convention.
They had no mandate (yes!) to replace the Articles.
Agreed, yet the states didn't need to ratify it if they found it utterly
objectionable, or felt the delegates exceeded their authority.
Yet the states did ratify it, and thus the Articles of Confederation
were replaced by the US Constitution and the nation changed how it's
central government was formed and functioned.
The states didn't ratify it in accord with the specification for
amendments in the Articles. It wasn't unanimously ratified when it was
declared adopted. That's unconstitutional.
All this says is that you are a big zero on econ.
you support rapist priests? Well, Douche, you *do* support rapist
priests, but that's not what this thread is about.
And we Roman Catholics demand "throw them in jail".


the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-24 18:28:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:49:37 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:19:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:18:17 -0700, Just Wondering
That country was defined in the Constitution ...
Why then did the United States of America exist as a
country for years before the Constitution was drafted?
The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781 and
established the name of the new country as the United States
but the
details clearly show the name was not for a single political body
but
a confederation of independent States that had formed together to
present a united front in dealing with foreign governments. It
failed.
So the United States of America failed?
Define what you mean by "United States of America".
Wow, you don't even know what country you're talking about.
But tell me, do you think there is more than one United States of
America?
There were two.
Nope - only one. It changed its constitution.
Which we all note is a provision allowed in the current Constitution.
By "changed", I meant "replaced entirely."
Yep, and allowed by the current Constitution.
No provision for it in the Articles.
There is a serious school of thought that says that, under the
Articles, what the drafters of the Constitution did was unconstitutional.
Perhaps, but then again the intent of any Constitutional Convention is
to make any and all changes necessary.
The "Federal convention" was not intended to be a complete constitutiona
convention.
They had no mandate (yes!) to replace the Articles.
Agreed, yet the states didn't need to ratify it if they found it utterly
objectionable, or felt the delegates exceeded their authority.
Yet the states did ratify it, and thus the Articles of Confederation
were replaced by the US Constitution and the nation changed how it's
central government was formed and functioned.
The states didn't ratify it in accord with the specification for
amendments in the Articles. It wasn't unanimously ratified when it was
declared adopted. That's unconstitutional.
All this says is that you are a big zero on econ.
you support rapist priests? Well, Douche, you *do* support rapist
priests, but that's not what this thread is about.
And we Roman Catholics demand "throw them in jail".
No, you *don't*, Douche. You demand they be shuffled around to new
parishes so they can rape and rape some more.
Post by duke
the doucher, smug fat prick and congenital liar
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect flim-flam to sucker the idiots."
Pop Paul VI, Rapist
*****
duke
2017-01-25 17:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by duke
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:49:37 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:19:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:18:17 -0700, Just Wondering
That country was defined in the Constitution ...
Why then did the United States of America exist as a
country for years before the Constitution was drafted?
The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781 and
established the name of the new country as the United States
but the
details clearly show the name was not for a single political body
but
a confederation of independent States that had formed together to
present a united front in dealing with foreign governments. It
failed.
So the United States of America failed?
Define what you mean by "United States of America".
Wow, you don't even know what country you're talking about.
But tell me, do you think there is more than one United States of
America?
There were two.
Nope - only one. It changed its constitution.
Which we all note is a provision allowed in the current Constitution.
By "changed", I meant "replaced entirely."
Yep, and allowed by the current Constitution.
No provision for it in the Articles.
There is a serious school of thought that says that, under the
Articles, what the drafters of the Constitution did was unconstitutional.
Perhaps, but then again the intent of any Constitutional Convention is
to make any and all changes necessary.
The "Federal convention" was not intended to be a complete constitutiona
convention.
They had no mandate (yes!) to replace the Articles.
Agreed, yet the states didn't need to ratify it if they found it utterly
objectionable, or felt the delegates exceeded their authority.
Yet the states did ratify it, and thus the Articles of Confederation
were replaced by the US Constitution and the nation changed how it's
central government was formed and functioned.
The states didn't ratify it in accord with the specification for
amendments in the Articles. It wasn't unanimously ratified when it was
declared adopted. That's unconstitutional.
All this says is that you are a big zero on econ.
you support rapist priests? Well, Douche, you *do* support rapist
priests, but that's not what this thread is about.
And we Roman Catholics demand "throw them in jail".
No, you *don't*, Douche. You demand they be shuffled around to new
parishes so they can rape and rape some more.
Oh, but we do. You can't shuffle a bad priest from one point to another within
the US without the news coverage. It stopped last century.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-25 17:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by duke
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:49:37 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:19:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:18:17 -0700, Just Wondering
That country was defined in the Constitution ...
Why then did the United States of America exist as a
country for years before the Constitution was drafted?
The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781 and
established the name of the new country as the United States
but the
details clearly show the name was not for a single political body
but
a confederation of independent States that had formed together to
present a united front in dealing with foreign governments. It
failed.
So the United States of America failed?
Define what you mean by "United States of America".
Wow, you don't even know what country you're talking about.
But tell me, do you think there is more than one United States of
America?
There were two.
Nope - only one. It changed its constitution.
Which we all note is a provision allowed in the current Constitution.
By "changed", I meant "replaced entirely."
Yep, and allowed by the current Constitution.
No provision for it in the Articles.
There is a serious school of thought that says that, under the
Articles, what the drafters of the Constitution did was unconstitutional.
Perhaps, but then again the intent of any Constitutional Convention is
to make any and all changes necessary.
The "Federal convention" was not intended to be a complete constitutiona
convention.
They had no mandate (yes!) to replace the Articles.
Agreed, yet the states didn't need to ratify it if they found it utterly
objectionable, or felt the delegates exceeded their authority.
Yet the states did ratify it, and thus the Articles of Confederation
were replaced by the US Constitution and the nation changed how it's
central government was formed and functioned.
The states didn't ratify it in accord with the specification for
amendments in the Articles. It wasn't unanimously ratified when it was
declared adopted. That's unconstitutional.
All this says is that you are a big zero on econ.
you support rapist priests? Well, Douche, you *do* support rapist
priests, but that's not what this thread is about.
And we Roman Catholics demand "throw them in jail".
No, you *don't*, Douche. You demand they be shuffled around to new
parishes so they can rape and rape some more.
Oh, but we do.
Yes: you demand they be concealed and shuffled so they can rape and
rape some more. That's just what I said.
Post by duke
the doucher, smug fat prick and congenital liar
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect flim-flam to sucker the idiots."
Pop Paul VI, Rapist
*****
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-24 22:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:49:37 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 16:19:33 -0500, "Scout"
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 02:18:17 -0700, Just Wondering
That country was defined in the Constitution ...
Why then did the United States of America exist as a
country for years before the Constitution was drafted?
The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781 and
established the name of the new country as the United States
but the
details clearly show the name was not for a single political body
but
a confederation of independent States that had formed together to
present a united front in dealing with foreign governments. It
failed.
So the United States of America failed?
Define what you mean by "United States of America".
Wow, you don't even know what country you're talking about.
But tell me, do you think there is more than one United States of
America?
There were two.
Nope - only one. It changed its constitution.
Which we all note is a provision allowed in the current Constitution.
By "changed", I meant "replaced entirely."
Yep, and allowed by the current Constitution.
No provision for it in the Articles.
There is a serious school of thought that says that, under the
Articles, what the drafters of the Constitution did was unconstitutional.
Perhaps, but then again the intent of any Constitutional Convention is
to make any and all changes necessary.
The "Federal convention" was not intended to be a complete constitutiona
convention.
They had no mandate (yes!) to replace the Articles.
Agreed, yet the states didn't need to ratify it if they found it utterly
objectionable, or felt the delegates exceeded their authority.
Yet the states did ratify it, and thus the Articles of Confederation
were replaced by the US Constitution and the nation changed how it's
central government was formed and functioned.
The states didn't ratify it in accord with the specification for
amendments in the Articles. It wasn't unanimously ratified when it was
declared adopted. That's unconstitutional.
All this says is that
you support rapist priests? Well, Douche, you *do* support rapist
priests, but that's not what this thread is about.
And we Roman Catholics demand "throw them in jail".
No, Douche, you don't. You hide them. You shuffle them around to new
parishes and new schools, so they can keep raping, because that's what
Catholics expect their priests to do.
Post by duke
the doucher, smug fat prick and congenital liar
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect flim-flam to sucker the idiots."
Pop Paul VI, Rapist
*****
Loading...