@ChaosEngine @newtboy
Well, if Climate Change is now "irreversible," does that mean that the Climate Change believers will stop trying to use the government to try to reverse it? (I say it's one less thing to worry about! Alas, there will always be contrarians to this malarkey, as the U.N. pouts "Quit thinking about Climate Change, and act to empower us even further than we already are! What wealth still exists is shrinking, so we need to scramble harder for your last dollars!" You boys should donate if you care so much.)

Thank fuck you liked it after all that malarkey! Imagine if it had been pure shit

the dudesons are great! they're just like jackass, only without the "done by professionals or under the supervision of professionals," malarkey.

Hrm, interesting since I am drunk... But you said, "Also too," which makes all that you wrote moot! Ha, also can mean "too!" I win!

All jokes aside...the constitution, as I said, is understood backwards by Paul. If it isn't wrote, the government has the ability to do (At least the State.)

Universal healthcare is legal, not because of the commerce clause...but because it is.

>> ^NetRunner:

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.
Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.
According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.
Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.
IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.
For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.
There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?
There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.
Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?
Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.
Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?

Lol. We will fight them on land, sea but not air, that's unconstitutional.
>> ^NetRunner:

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.

For the record, I'm not a strict constructionist. However, I do recognize the danger of looser interpretations, even though I'm politically moderate person. I don't have a good answer for example about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because that law was sorely needed, but it sure does open Pandora's box about what the gov't can and can't regulate. Regulation of interstate commerce allowed for things like environmental regulation, the formation of the EPA, etc. But it sure can cause the gov't to regulate things it shouldn't, too.

The formation of an Air Force though is an easier argument constitutionally, and it's a useful thing to review because it illustrates the thought process of the Supreme Court. When something isn't outright said in Article I, Section 8, those powers in combination with interpretting other sections such as the Preamble ("provide for the common defense..."), or sometimes other documents the forefathers wrote such as the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, etc., provide ideas about their intent. It's clearly implied that since they could form an Army and Navy for defense, once flight was possible, it's implied we need an Air Force.

As to the things below you're saying should be put to a vote, they are, but not directly by the people. That's how the Amendment process works. Should it be a direct vote by the people? In my opinion, that would be a horrible idea. The people simply for the most part do not understand the ramifications of amending the Constitution.

>> ^NetRunner:

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.
Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.
According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.
Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.
IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.
For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.
There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?
There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.
Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?
Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.
Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.

Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.

According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.

Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.

IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.

For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.

There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?

There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.

Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?

Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.

Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?

There is no black group-think status quo. That is a myth created by people who want to discount prevailing black opinions and thought. That's the premise of this video, and why its logic is deeply flawed. >> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

I would normally agree with your "Token blacks" statement buuuut..
This isn't a group of black republicans defending Rush Limbaugh for calling all poor black single mothers deadbeat swindlers because they accept assistance.
If anything, this proves the magnitude of the situation "our country" is in.
When blacks would rather vote for an old homophobic racist rather than help re-elect "one of their own".. You know there's something up.
I'm not going to suggest some malarkey about how "this is the beginning of a new post-racial society" because that will never happen..
Tho it is nice to see the black group-think status quo busted up a bit more, for the better.
>> ^longde:
I hate when white people use token blacks to excuse anti-black behavior.

I would normally agree with your "Token blacks" statement buuuut..

This isn't a group of black republicans defending Rush Limbaugh for calling all poor black single mothers deadbeat swindlers because they accept assistance.

If anything, this proves the magnitude of the situation "our country" is in.

When blacks would rather vote for an old homophobic racist rather than help re-elect "one of their own".. You know there's something up.

I'm not going to suggest some malarkey about how "this is the beginning of a new post-racial society" because that will never happen..

Tho it is nice to see the black group-think status quo busted up a bit more, for the better.
>> ^longde:

I hate when white people use token blacks to excuse anti-black behavior.

@NetRunner

How bout you just admit that "democrat" and "republican" are both bullshit titles that don't convey any real meaning.

Obama ordered the assassination of a U.S. Citizen WITHOUT A TRIAL OR CHARGES, even.

Doesn't that strike at the very core of all your democratic rule of law, Dems are marginally, if not unequivocally, better than Repubs malarkey?

You've already lost this disagreement.
When Obama failed to close Gitmo and expanded rendition, you lost.
When Obama continued and expanded warrant-less wiretapping, you lost.
When Obama extended the Trillion Bush Tax Cuts for the 1%, you lost.

The individuals who assume the title "Democrat" might have more liberal leaning mindsets, might have flexible acceptance of different groups, might have a more progressive focus for the future of their communities.

That doesn't change the fact that the system in which they work.. is rigged.
The outcome is predetermined.

Chris Hedges said it best. "There's no way to vote against the banks."

Bankers, speculators and usurers rule the modern world.

Their fiat currency, derivative trading, two-party election rigging world will be the only with any relevance as long as pig-monkeys like @NetRunner and @quantumushroom buy into their wholesale bullshit and let it be.

Cut free. Establish your own voluntary hive-mind. Occupy the Universe.
[there's enough space for all of us. trust me]

Do not be fooled by this corporate-funded PR exercise.

This is bald partisan malarkey... which figures, because The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank co-founded by Charles Koch, chairman of the board and CEO of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company (after Cargill) by revenue in the USA -- responsible for the "Americans for Prosperity" behind most of the "astroturf" Tea Party and much of the "Covert Operations' that are being waged against the Obama administration.

>> ^spoco2:

Yes, all well and good, but along with westy I have to take umbrage at her thinking she's worked out what's going to happen when she dies via these drugs. What shit.
No issue here with the drugs, just with people thinking they've found an ultimate truth through them that is untrue.


yes and no, I agree with this statement a great deal, but on the flip side it sounds an awful lot like you are saying " you know what happens " because you clearly are dismissing her claims, how do you know they are wrong ?

I think its malarkey, but to say someone is wrong when you are no better off than they, is in itself wrong.

*fun fact- When I was on mushrooms around 2002-2003 I literally thought the house cat was a reincarnation of my grandma who had passed away years before. I also wrote a poem about the tack on the wall talking to me.

Because ironically anyone with enough brain cells to be angry enough to protest this malarkey also knows enough about Faux to completely ignore all the tripe they push out.

@rougy, I'm not sure Venezuela is the bastion of social utopia you crave.

You wrote: "I don't want to hear any malarkey about "creating jobs" when that is the last thing that rich people or capitalists want to do. You weren't going to hire people to create jobs, you were going to hire people to do your work for you and make you richer."

You obviously don't know me at all. But you're proving day-by-day to be the king of misguided assumptions.

I'm not rich so I was hardly in a position to make myself richer. I don't come from a well-to-do family and I've paid my way every step. I worked in a textile mill while in college. Does that sound rich? I'm not sure why I feel you're wanting me to justify my humble roots. It's not important where I came from or how much I make.

I will say I was hoping for a successful company, and I was working around the clock making next to nothing while freelancers made a mint from the work I had to hire out. I realized it didn't make financial sense for me to continue especially since I stood to make much more as a freelancer.

The point was, I did create jobs, and if you ever spent a day in your life building a small company from the ground up, you'd realize how difficult and prohibitively expensive it really is. You may take in $200k in a year, but have to pay out $175k, and you're working harder than anyone else.

You can't help the employee (or the unemployed) by destroying the employer.

@blankfist, well, we need to start trying some new systems on for size, first and foremost, and that's not going to happen as long as people like you, Kubric, and the ultra rich and the trans-national finance institutions that they own are more than willing to strangle those new systems like babes in the cradle.

I don't want to hear any malarkey about "creating jobs" when that is the last thing that rich people or capitalists want to do. You weren't going to hire people to create jobs, you were going to hire people to do your work for you and make you richer.

Where capitalism does create jobs is in the sweatshops of the hell holes that dot the Pacific rim of Asia.

You've retreated into this cocoon of idealism that has completely skewed your view of reality. You've gone so far as to resurrect antiquated definitions of political and social movements and rebrand them to suit this idealistic, and very unrealistic, view of the world.

You've gone so far as to call yourself a liberal and to accuse GW Bush of being a leftist.

That is a disconnect with reality that I think you would do well to reevaluate.

I can't give you a better system than capitalism, but that does not mean that one does not exist, that one can not be found, established, perfected. Things are better for the people of Venezuela, Brazil, and Bolivia since they've moved to a more socialistic system. Few could argue otherwise.

There is a better way. It's out there, waiting to be born.