Comments
3,141 - 3,160 of 8,007 Comments Last updated Wednesday

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3423
Jan 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean flagrantly obstructionist?
What did you call it when the Democrats did it to Bush?

Hypocrite!

Since: Jan 13

Returning with a vengeance

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3424
Jan 26, 2013
 
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The petitioners tried to CLAIM that the Second Amendment protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. They were "shot down".
I believe their claims were that even members of the National Guard had no right to own weapons, the weapon had to be used "in the national guard".

That said, I do think the collective right exists alongside the individual right, and a state having its own WMD is not verboten.

If Texas had nukes, federal power would be greatly restricted as the 10th Amendment is supposed to be :)

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3425
Jan 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Heller also inadvertently pointed out the logic that permits the ownership of semiautomatic weapons.

-- As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”

You should be able to have what the police has, for when they can't get there in time.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3426
Jan 26, 2013
 
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>Che can't even find his way around Topix without failing miserably. He couldn't find you or me with a government grant, a GPS system and a lifetime supply of Kleenex.
LMAO I know.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3427
Jan 26, 2013
 
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
Never thought of that, I know DuPree is, but I operate by "no girls on the internet" rule, unless someone identifies as female, I think they are male.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/there-are-no-gi...
I do too, but I have suspected 'Che' might be a woman. Girl. Whatever.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3428
Jan 26, 2013
 
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
Never thought of that, I know DuPree is, but I operate by "no girls on the internet" rule, unless someone identifies as female, I think they are male.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/there-are-no-gi...
somewhere in another post che confirmed it.
titonton divaunte pants

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3429
Jan 26, 2013
 
Call in the clowns wrote:
<quoted text>
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/p...
Listen TWIT, IM NOT UNEDUCATED, AND YOU'RE THE SORRYASS TWIT WHO MAKES A FOOL OF HIMSELF DAILY ON THIS FORUM, along with your other twittettes!
EVERYTHING IS TWISTED TO SUIT YOUR OWN PURPOSES.
THERE'S NO MILITIA MARCHING IN THE STREETS AND ALL YOU CONSERVATURDS ARE SO PARANOID ABOUT EVERYTHING....OOOOOPS, BETTER CRAWL BACK UNDER YOUR ROCK.....THE SKY IS FALLING...
THIS IS COMIC RELIEF FOR ME. IT NEVER CEASES TO AMAZE ME WHAT CLOWNS YOU ALL ARE....
I think you are delusional. Who is twisting things? Oh and is any body who disagrees with this: http://m.youtube.com/#/watch...
A "conservatard" or what ever you just posted? You live in your own world grouping people that way.

Since: Jan 13

Returning with a vengeance

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3430
Jan 26, 2013
 
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
I do too, but I have suspected 'Che' might be a woman. Girl. Whatever.
May I ask how?

Just curious, he/she never seemed to be much of a feminist.

The posts usually reflected an attitude of worship of the state, hatred of the right, and an anti-war attitude of somewhat pro-islam sentiment.

Usually leftists of the female variety are non-stop in promotion that the right oppresses women, Che doesn't seem to do that.
titonton divaunte pants

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3432
Jan 26, 2013
 
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>I believe Che is a she.
more wild conspiracy theories with no proof. http://m.youtube.com/#/watch...

Since: Jan 13

Returning with a vengeance

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3433
Jan 26, 2013
 
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>somewhere in another post che confirmed it.
Learn something new every day

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3434
Jan 26, 2013
 
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
All presidential appointments are "hand picked", nominating commissions don't exist at that level.
I understand the presidents make their choice..., which, in my mind, is as it should be. I would want to make my own choice of personnel.

But why then, was this found to be unconstitutional because he bypassed the senate? Did he not avoid them in order to 'stack the deck' with like minded, manipulable appointments without encountering any opposition? As I said, I have not been able to follow this on the news, nor on this forum, step by step. I'm neither a lawyer nor consitutional scholar.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3435
Jan 26, 2013
 
titonton divaunte pants wrote:
<quoted text> more wild conspiracy theories with no proof. http://m.youtube.com/#/watch...
no wild conspiracy theories.
titonton divaunte pants

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3436
Jan 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
May I ask how?
Just curious, he/she never seemed to be much of a feminist.
The posts usually reflected an attitude of worship of the state, hatred of the right, and an anti-war attitude of somewhat pro-islam sentiment.
Usually leftists of the female variety are non-stop in promotion that the right oppresses women, Che doesn't seem to do that.
I know someone who had looked up its skirt but all they could tell me was that its underwear looked like the wax paper at the bottom of an order of hotwings crammed between two marshmallows.... I guess if I really cared I woulg guess....girl?
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch...
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3437
Jan 26, 2013
 
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
No--I would say both sides were playing slick and it was pretty much a coin toss which way the Supremes would find.
With that said, Obama's purpose was to keep the government running. Can't say the same for the folks who had dedicated themselves to an ongoing policy of non-cooperation.
Well, not really, the republicans were playing democrats from 2007 till 2010. It wasn't a coin toss and the supreme court has not weighed in on it
(yet).

I do not care how noble you think Obama's position was/is. Bush thought he was doing the right thing when he instituted the indefinite detention and the suspension of Habeas Corpus. A lot of people agreed with him but it does not make him right.

Since: Jan 13

Returning with a vengeance

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3438
Jan 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand the presidents make their choice..., which, in my mind, is as it should be. I would want to make my own choice of personnel.
But why then, was this found to be unconstitutional because he bypassed the senate? Did he not avoid them in order to 'stack the deck' with like minded, manipulable appointments without encountering any opposition? As I said, I have not been able to follow this on the news, nor on this forum, step by step. I'm neither a lawyer nor consitutional scholar.
Relating to the NLRB, yes

Normally the party of the president by tradition gets three of the five seats on the board.

In 2007, when the Ds took the Senate, they refused to confirm Bush nominees. Since then there have not been five NLRB members.

After the decision to block the Boeing plant in SC, the right wanted the two remaining Bush appoitees to quit so the NLRB would not be able to enforce decisions and the courts would expedite the decision.

They did not resign and the Rs filibustered the new nominees, Obama then recess appointed when the Senate was not in recess.

Now they have found that this was illegal, presumably the NLRB decisions will be knocked down.

The board should be abolished, it is an executive agency making judicial decisions.

And it is not titled "UCMJ" therefore it is unconstitutional.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3439
Jan 26, 2013
 
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
May I ask how?
Just curious, he/she never seemed to be much of a feminist.
The posts usually reflected an attitude of worship of the state, hatred of the right, and an anti-war attitude of somewhat pro-islam sentiment.
Usually leftists of the female variety are non-stop in promotion that the right oppresses women, Che doesn't seem to do that.
I don't know why. Woman's intuition? I have just suspected she was a woman for the last week or so.

No, Che has never shown much of an interest in 'women's issues.' But then, fairly, I have never championed women's rights either. I simply do not believe there is any war on women. I've never experienced anything I would call discrimination or favoritism because of my gender.

I'd like anyone to give me one example where women are 'oppressed.'

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3440
Jan 26, 2013
 
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>Really? Hmmm...certainly explains the over the top emotional outbursts.
Oh, Georgie...you're treading on dangerous ground. Glitter and I are women.:-)
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3441
Jan 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>That's sort of irrelevant. The court did make determinations on it and did have something to say about it and those determination and saying will have weight in any other case concerning it. To pretend that the DC heller case was resolved and only reached as far as Washington D.C.'s ability to forbid handguns is missing everything in the ruling.
Heller had absolutely nothing to do with the right to bear arms as a member of a militia. Nothing. That issue has not been addressed. Everything the Court discussed about it is dicta.

Look up the definition of the word. You're not gettin it.

woof

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3442
Jan 26, 2013
 
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>

I'd like anyone to give me one example where women are 'oppressed.'
here ya go......

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/19/wo...

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3443
Jan 26, 2013
 
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
Relating to the NLRB, yes
Normally the party of the president by tradition gets three of the five seats on the board.
In 2007, when the Ds took the Senate, they refused to confirm Bush nominees. Since then there have not been five NLRB members.
After the decision to block the Boeing plant in SC, the right wanted the two remaining Bush appoitees to quit so the NLRB would not be able to enforce decisions and the courts would expedite the decision.
They did not resign and the Rs filibustered the new nominees, Obama then recess appointed when the Senate was not in recess.
Now they have found that this was illegal, presumably the NLRB decisions will be knocked down.
The board should be abolished, it is an executive agency making judicial decisions.
And it is not titled "UCMJ" therefore it is unconstitutional.
Thank you. The fog is beginning to lift. Correct me where I am wrong.

So, in essence, they are not 'appointments', but 'nominees' and the senate can block them.

If the senate is in session, it is mandatory that any nominees, be made known to them and have their approval.

Bush and other presidents did make appointments when the senate was not in session, therefore skirting the nomination process, but legally.

Obama quietly appointed these persons WHILE the senate was in session, without notification and the nomination approval process completed, therefore, they are illegal and unconstitutional and they have made over 300 dictums that are now null and void.

SCOTUS, if Obama takes it there, will either to hear it or not. If not, the appellate decision will stand; or SCOTUS will hear it and it may be upheld or reversed by them.

I should have put this in a PM rather than bothering all the other posters with it. Apologies.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

37 Users are viewing the Columbus Forum right now

Search the Columbus Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Do you agree with Texas protecting its own border? 13 min Hello there 11
Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 15 min Canton 29,190
Search For Suspect After Double Shooting 22 min yeah baby yeah 1
Obama seen as threat to Constitution 1 hr Lunchtime Observer 32
Lois Lerner linked to another erased hard drive 4 hr Male 90
Bennett Smith gate stories from the victims poi... (May '13) 5 hr Interesting 2,218
A McDefecation Burger 6 hr yeah baby yeah 1
•••
•••
•••
Columbus Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••