Chucktshoes

That isn't the judges call to make. I don't agree with the Satan name change either, also not the judge's call. Regardless of what any government official's opinion on the matter is, the child's parents have sole right to decide the name of the child.

You got a version with a naked Bea Arthur? :dirty:

Oh. Well damn. Nevermind.

Shirley Manson, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways.

Since you claim to know the nature of the Constitution in the manner that you do, that makes your position even more indefensible. For if you really understood this concept, then you would understand that the Congress has no authority to legislate on this matter as the Constitution and BoR do not specifically grant it such authority. The BoR even goes on to specifically prohibit legislation on this matter in the 2A. So, if the Congress is attempting to act in a manner in which it has been specifically prohibited, to me, that would qualify as an illegitimate action. Also, since that action concerned whether or not to strip people of a natural right, I would qualify that as immoral in addition to its being illegitimate. So building on what you said about your understanding of the Constitution, how does this; make any damn sense at all? Sure Congress can propose and vote on any damn bill it wants to, but if the content of the bill is not only outside of Congress' scope of enumerated powers, but also of an immoral nature, how can it be legitimately voted on? Unless of course, one believes that there are no limits to the power of Congress (or local governments for that matter) and that they may pass any law they damn well please regardless of how it violates an individual's property or liberty. Your words may say you believe one thing, but the positions you have taken lead me to suspect you really believe the other. Awe, c'mon puddin! Don't leave! You know you still wanna play. :lol:

This.

That's a boatload of fail getting ready to set sail. Anytime I see the words "warning shot" in print I cringe cause I know that this wont end well.

There! That looks a bit more accurate! ;)

I will reiterate, I reject your premise as faulty, but if you really want a specific clause of the Constitution that shows the bill to be illegitimate, how about Amendment 2 where it says "shall not be infringed". Does that sufficiently meet your criteria? ;) You should really consider going into politics, I think you would be at home there amongst its current crew ( <- That was a snide comment! ;) )as that was a pretty skilled attempt at deflection. I will however ask again, through what lens do you view the Constitution? Does it grant rights and privileges to the people from the government, OR does it limit government to a few specifically enumerated powers of limited scope while merely acknowledging that all of the rights both listed and unlisted reside in the people who were endowed with the, by their creator? Oh, and my panties are fine and un-bunched. I appreciate your concern about my undergarments.

I too look to the Constitution in regards to matters of how our government is supposed to operate. The real question is through what lens do you view it? Do you view it as a document that grants the people rights and privileges from an all powerful government, or do you view it as a document that narrowly enumerates what the government is allowed to do within a limited set of powers while merely acknowledging the natural rights that all people possess by endowment from their creator simply because they draw breath? I view it through the latter lens. Just as many of us think people have things backwards when they look to the law for permission to engage in an action ("where does it say that I can do X") I think that you have it backwards when you ask where it says that Congress can't vote on a matter concerning a natural right acknowledged by the Bill of Rights. The question you should be asking is, "Where does it say that they CAN act in that capacity?" Our founding documents as they were written limit government, not individuals. Once again, my likening of you to others is only an insult if you take it as such. I simply made a statement of opinion based upon my worldview. Hence my exhortation for you to "deal with it" as it is you who are bothered by it, not me.

I just hope it isn't anyone here as nobody who spends time on a gun board is likely to get a pass since we spend so much time talking about the asshat.

Do you need a law or a rule to tell you that you can't take a vote to murder someone? Do you require a law or rule that says you can't take a vote to steal any sum of money from someone else? I don't. Just like I don't require a law or rule that says it is illegitimate and immoral to even take a vote to strip another human being of a natural god given right, such as the right of self defense. Merely taking the vote in the first place lends a level of legitimatacy to an action that I find completely unconscionable. As far as my likening you to certain politicians, there is nothing snide about it. It was not written in a devious or underhanded manner, but in a direct and forthright manner. I view all authoritarian statists as the same. Your words have placed you squarely in that category according to my views. It wasn't worded as an insult of the "you're a stinky butt poophead" variety. It was simply a statement showing how I view your positions as you have articulated them as seperated from the others I mentioned by the merest of degrees of difference. If it offends you that someone would see no functional difference between your positions and those of the likes of Pelosi and Obama, tough. Deal with it.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother having the same argument with you over and over and over. You think it is perfectly acceptable to use government force to rule over people's lives. I don't. To me, you, Obama, Pelosi, McCain, Corker and Alexander are all the same. I give up. Not because I think you made a better argument, or that I can't continue to present my views to counter yours, but because our presuppositional world views prevent us from actually bringing forth any fruitful discussion. I'm bored with it at this point. I'm gonna go have a beer.

Why it means is that your so called proper action was completely meaningless. It sent no message other than that is ok acceptable to vote on whether or not to strip people of natural rights. My position is that the vote itself was illegitimate that was the message of those filibustering, we don't take a vote on constitutionally acknowledged rights.

:lol: Really?! That's the best you got? You don't understand my position at all do you? I don't believe in war adventuring in other countries. I do believe that when we are directly attacked by another country the proper response is to go in and lay waste to everything we encounter Old Testament style until they surrender completely. Then we go home and leave them to clean up the mess they caused. For example, I would have seen us never engage Iraq, but Afghanistan would still be glowing in the dark. Get the idea?

.

If the military is doing anything other than waging a war in direct response to an act of aggression on our sovereign territory, then yep, that too. 12 years of elective war and nation building have not only sold our children and their children ino debt slavery, but it has also spent thousands of lives needlessly along with going a far piece towards stripping our nation of its last vestiges of the concepts of individual liberty and freedom from government meddling in our day to day lives. The modern surveillance state has been built upon the ashes of the twin towers. Just as "the only way to save the village was to destroy it" was said in the past, apparently the only way to protect our liberty was to strip it from us.

I don't think they should hardly compromise on anything. The lack of compromise will ideally result in gridlock, where they do little or nothing. I'd be happy to pay the politicians much higher salaries if they would merely go up to washington or nashville and do little or nothing. Leave us the heck alone. This. You will never hear me complain about the inability of government to get things done. That's the whole problem in the first place! They do too many things they have no business doing with money stolen from the people. If we could dump the entirety of the federal government (literally down to the last man or woman) into the Washington incinerator, we would all be better off.

I understand perfectly, thank you very much and you really don't have to get your panties in a wad and not so vaguely insult me by asserting that I'm a Republican (which I haven't been for more years than you've been old enough to vote) and therefore a statist just because I don't agree with your "superior insight" (perhaps insulting people is just your way of eliciting their support for your way of political thought? :screwy:). The bill needed to be voted to the floor so it could be defeated...I highly suspect, although I don't have time to do so right now, that similar procedural things have been done by our founding fathers since the earliest days of our nation; but I suppose you would probably call them statists too! But that's okay; if you want to hate on Corker and Alexander for actually doing something right for once or hate on me for that matter, I won't stand in your way. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: How useful was that procedural action "that had to be done" when Harry Reid can recall the measure for another vote at any time?

You still don't get it, and I don't think you ever will. Fundamental human rights are not something that can be legitimately voted on. Your inability to understand that places you and your Republican compatriots in the same category as all of those Democrats you dislike so much. I'm reminded of the old joke about Churchill at the dinner party and the woman whom he asked to sleep with him for varying amounts if money. What you are is clear, it is only to what degree that is yet to be determined. Republican, Democrat, fascist, communist all are authoritarian statists with only minor degrees of difference between them.

I was not aware of the second location. I will definitely put this information to use. Thank you. :D

That's 6 years.

No shocker there. I especially enjoy the one where if someone ends up on a secret list with no way appeal or even to find out how you got on it they lose their 2nd Amemndment rights.

That is excellent as well.

If you are willing to travel just a few short miles into Midtown, the BBQ Shop on Madison is my favorite in the city. Another option is Cozy Corner at the corner of Danny Thomas and North Parkway. Those are my two favorite BBQ joints in the city.