Valsuelm
-
Posts
405 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Valsuelm
-
-
Is that supposed to mean they're all Jewish? Or all Zionists?
CNN is undoubtedly a pro Israel organization, as is pretty much every other 'mainstream media' outlet in the U.S.. That's nothing new.
-
Much of the point is that CNN's 'news' is as fake as wrestling, and it's doubly fake violence as well.
And Trump fake wrestling represents the publicity he enjoys from the back on forth with CNN as if he's not deliberately inciting this bull. Solipsism and narcissistic personality disorder, I tell ya!
-
What evil **** is the GOP trying to do that the Democratic party leadership doesn't support?
-
-
"It's not what is sounds like. They can't stop people from traveling, they just can't do it at State expense. It's a petty and petulant move that has no real impact on anything. I'm a state employee myself and almost nothing gets done at state expense."
It just seems like something that should be legally impossible. Then again, in Kanada, we have some weird cross province rules including dealing with bringing alcohol across provincial borders and how dreadful our health care system can be to cross province travelers as well. Epically disgusting.
In kalifornia's case, it is hypocritical as well since they likely do a lot of business with countries that are vehemently anti gay. In fact, doesn't Kalifornia oppose the Muslim country travel 'bans'? the same countries that re largely anti gay? Shouldn't they be supporting them based on their anti gay stances? LMAO
Hypocrisy in Politics. Well.. I never.
The thing about 'legally impossible' laws is that once passed they generally need to be challenged in court before they're actually deemed 'legally impossible'.
A legislature and executive can pass pretty much any law they want, and it will stand until someone challenges it and succeeds in getting a court to agree that the law should not be.
So in the case of this California law, another State would have to challenge it in Federal court.
Good luck finding another state that actually wants emissaries from the State Government of California visiting them.
-
1
-
-
I think the answer to that is a resounding No in any court that actually holds the U.S. Constitution with any regard at all
Let me know when you find one of those: http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/23/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-property-rig
Touché
Common Law is so ****ing stupid.
Elaborate por favor.
-
-
Right... because that is totally the same thing.Man, I wish I could just own a bunch of vials of Ebola without the nanny government butting in too. I should be able to get my delirious high on without trouble or having to care how it affects the rest of society.
To be clear, that was in response to this:
In a free nation the only thing that would be illegal to possess is stolen property.
Make weed legal all you want. Hasn't caused any problems here as far as I know. But that hyperbolic statement was ridiculous and I responded to it in kind.
Nothing hyperbolic or ridiculous in what I stated at all.
Not sure one can get high on Ebola, but if you think you can get your kicks, enjoy your Ebola high all you want as far as I'm concerned. Might one describe it as intense and short lived? Let us know.
-
That is too simple. What about people, can I posses that? What about land? If buy land, that land was (in all likelihood) at some point in history taken by force; so can I own land? And what is even "mine"? Is "mine" whatever I put work into? So if I make a shoe it's automatically mine? Then why would a boss be able to own what their workers produce; wouldn't that mean capitalism should be outlawed in your country? Furthermore, what about public property? If I irreversibly damage a river through pollution, I made the river unusable. But the river was never mine; so did I steal from the public?In a free nation the only thing that would be illegal to possess is stolen property.
It's not too simple.
I wasn't drafting a law, I was putting forth an idea. Though one that with a little tweakage to the verbiage would indeed fit in well in the 'Bill of Rights'.
Key words bolded and underlined that make most of what you say irrelevant to the argument. A notable exception would be 'people'. For most folks 'people' are not 'things', but we could clarify that somewhere if necessary for the devious and daft.
-
I think the answer to that is a resounding No in any court that actually holds the U.S. Constitution with any regard at all
Let me know when you find one of those: http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/23/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-property-rig
Touché
-
All of that is already happening. It would be a better argument if the government was actually succeeding in regulating drugs.
It is, I mean the CIA did smuggle drugs.
... and no doubt still does.
-
-
Here is a surprise. The SCOTUS has re-instated Trump's travel ban pending a hearing of the case. That injunction was upheld all the way up until the it got to the top, I must say, I am surprised.
I'm curious, why are you surprised?
I'd have put a good amount of money on the outcome we've so far gotten, and would put a good amount of money on the 'travel ban' ultimately being reinstated in full, with a possible incoherent dissent from Ginsberg (though I could actually see her even supporting the reinstatement, I wouldn't put too much money on that).
I'm surprised because the only thing being argued here is the injunction. Not the travel ban itself. It's unusual for the the Court to overturn an injunction upheld by two lower courts. Especially since the issue itself is going to be litigated pretty quickly. An injunction usually preserves the status quo until the case is heard for real. Courts tend to like to do that. The only standard there is to meet is does the party applying for the injunction have a realistic chance to prevail.
That's not the only standard. Another is will a party be harmed by the injunction? Does the injunction itself even have legal merit? There's a number of factors at play.
That said, if we assume for the sake of argument that you're correct: that "The only standard there is to meet is does the party applying for the injunction have a realistic chance to prevail.", I think the answer to that is a resounding No in any court that actually holds the U.S. Constitution with any regard at all, and has justices that are at least semi-objective.
The U.S. Federal government is going to win this case with at least a 6-3 margin (very possibly 9-0 even), and I'll happily take bets such as the one Leferd and I previously had on this.
-
the problem lies with your choice of words. "Master and puppets" implies total control of the master, which then again leads to some sort of conspiracy theory. Furthermore, words like "puppets", "masters", "strings" especially in connection with politics simply have a very high frequency within conspiracy theories. So the misunderstanding is understandable.
I personally think that all this "they control the world" theories come frome the deep psychological desire for someone to be in control of this. The biggest fear of those people is not that "they" are in control but that no one is in control.
He means the joos, probably reffered to vaguely as "the elites". Or maybe the COMMUNIST COMPUTER GANGSTER GOD. In either case expect to be told to wallow in your ignorance or linked to a youtube video if you don't think either controls the world.
And who are these mysterious masters? Bilderberg? Nazis? Wall Street? Zionists? Aliens? Lizards? Sesame Street? Scrooge McDuck?Left/Right.... yea no.
Here:
Bernie is a commie stooge
Johnson is a stooge.
Hillary is a corrupt opportunist*
Macron is a corrupt opportunist*
All are puppets of the same masters. Only the type of strings are slightly different between the first two who are idealists to a degree and largely ignorant of the strings, and latter two who have no sincere ideals but are quite aware of the masters they serve.
* - will say anything and sell anyone to get what they want.
You certainly are correct that there are people who think this way. Many if not most people actually, need answers. It's natural to want them. A lot of people can't handle unknown, so they make things up, believe crap that they're fed, or trust in some others to think for them. They do this in their personal life, and they do it when looking at the world at large.
However, I never said 'they control the world', I simply said some folks have masters (in other words, they are puppets), some knowingly and some not. Not even a very controversial thing to say, as most people will acknowledge that politicians are bought and paid for peoples. It's a cliché even. Unfortunately a great many of the same people somehow think their politician isn't (very rarely is this actually the case at a national level, and the four I named most certainly do not qualify as exceptions to the rule). Also, few of these same people take the logic further or follow the money trail as far as it goes. Answers are there if one bothers to look, ugly ones.
Ben No. 3 did what he so often does, and thoroughly misinterprets what someone wrote, imagining things are said they are not said. Unfortunately, and sadly not surprisingly, others went with it.
Do I think there are people who control everything in the world? Nope. Do I think there are people who want to? Yup. Do I think there are people who wield a great deal more influence than many here would think? Yup. Do I think there are politicians that are perceived to be very powerful that are in actuality not due to being bought and paid for? Yup.
None of this is controversial to any truly thinking person, or is in the realm of aliens or other retardisms. 'The man behind the throne' is an age old expression, and more often than not an apt one. One of the main subjects of this last election was: Was politician X compromised by Y? Hell... the main stream media is still relentlessly pushing a 'conspiracy theory' about the current U.S. President being bought and paid for. One that some here are actually buying.
I'd like to think you're sharp enough (no pun intended) to realize this, you usually seem to be.
And if i misunderstand something, tell me, what use does this otherwise have?
You would do well to undo your belief that 'conspiracy theory' is a pejorative. Do that, pay attention, think, learn yourself a good deal more history (use primary sources whenever possible), think, be willing to admit you're wrong (embrace it when you are), think, be willing to admit you've fallen for lies (a very hard thing for many to do), be well aware of what you do not know, think, stand firm on what you do know (not what you believe, what you actually know for fact 1000%), and not only will you see more clearly in all things, the world will open up to you.
As for misunderstanding things: do your best to not insert words into other's mouths or make assumptions. If you're unsure, ask, wait and see, or just realize you're unsure. A lot of people are mentally boxed in, willingly. The very reason I made the post you're responding to was to set something a little more straight than was previously being discussed. Tip: don't look at things as left or right, or in just about all cases outside of binary math, in any kind of binary way. It's a common way to think yet horribly small minded, and you'll miss quite a lot of what's really happening if you think that way, in politics, in everything else involving human behavior, and a great many other things as well.
There is far more at play than many here (or anywhere) choose to attempt understand. You're young. That coupled with the fact that you're here in this thread tells me that you have oodles of potential. It's good that you're actively engaged, but don't jump the gun. You aren't on equal ground with everyone here. Not all opinions are equal. You're already standing taller than some, but shorter than others. That's more than perfectly ok, just make sure you grow. Always remember it can be hard to tell who is who and what is what on a forum where you can't look someone in the eyes. If you adhere to the advice I gave above though, you'll get much better at telling, everything.
-
In a free nation the only thing that would be illegal to possess is stolen property.
-
Here is a surprise. The SCOTUS has re-instated Trump's travel ban pending a hearing of the case. That injunction was upheld all the way up until the it got to the top, I must say, I am surprised.
I'm curious, why are you surprised?
I'd have put a good amount of money on the outcome we've so far gotten, and would put a good amount of money on the 'travel ban' ultimately being reinstated in full, with a possible incoherent dissent from Ginsberg (though I could actually see her even supporting the reinstatement, I wouldn't put too much money on that).
-
-
He means the joos, probably reffered to vaguely as "the elites". Or maybe the COMMUNIST COMPUTER GANGSTER GOD. In either case expect to be told to wallow in your ignorance or linked to a youtube video if you don't think either controls the world.
And who are these mysterious masters? Bilderberg? Nazis? Wall Street? Zionists? Aliens? Lizards? Sesame Street? Scrooge McDuck?Left/Right.... yea no.
Here:
Bernie is a commie stooge
Johnson is a stooge.
Hillary is a corrupt opportunist*
Macron is a corrupt opportunist*
All are puppets of the same masters. Only the type of strings are slightly different between the first two who are idealists to a degree and largely ignorant of the strings, and latter two who have no sincere ideals but are quite aware of the masters they serve.
* - will say anything and sell anyone to get what they want.
I personally think that all this "they control the world" theories come frome the deep psychological desire for someone to be in control of this. The biggest fear of those people is not that "they" are in control but that no one is in control.
You certainly are correct that there are people who think this way. Many if not most people actually, need answers. It's natural to want them. A lot of people can't handle unknown, so they make things up, believe crap that they're fed, or trust in some others to think for them. They do this in their personal life, and they do it when looking at the world at large.
However, I never said 'they control the world', I simply said some folks have masters (in other words, they are puppets), some knowingly and some not. Not even a very controversial thing to say, as most people will acknowledge that politicians are bought and paid for peoples. It's a cliché even. Unfortunately a great many of the same people somehow think their politician isn't (very rarely is this actually the case at a national level, and the four I named most certainly do not qualify as exceptions to the rule). Also, few of these same people take the logic further or follow the money trail as far as it goes. Answers are there if one bothers to look, ugly ones.
Ben No. 3 did what he so often does, and thoroughly misinterprets what someone wrote, imagining things are said they are not said. Unfortunately, and sadly not surprisingly, others went with it.
Do I think there are people who control everything in the world? Nope. Do I think there are people who want to? Yup. Do I think there are people who wield a great deal more influence than many here would think? Yup. Do I think there are politicians that are perceived to be very powerful that are in actuality not due to being bought and paid for? Yup.
None of this is controversial to any truly thinking person, or is in the realm of aliens or other retardisms. 'The man behind the throne' is an age old expression, and more often than not an apt one. One of the main subjects of this last election was: Was politician X compromised by Y? Hell... the main stream media is still relentlessly pushing a 'conspiracy theory' about the current U.S. President being bought and paid for. One that some here are actually buying.
I'd like to think you're sharp enough (no pun intended) to realize this, you usually seem to be.
-
And who are these mysterious masters? Bilderberg? Nazis? Wall Street? Zionists? Aliens? Lizards? Sesame Street? Scrooge McDuck?Left/Right.... yea no.
Here:
Bernie is a commie stooge
Johnson is a stooge.
Hillary is a corrupt opportunist*
Macron is a corrupt opportunist*
All are puppets of the same masters. Only the type of strings are slightly different between the first two who are idealists to a degree and largely ignorant of the strings, and latter two who have no sincere ideals but are quite aware of the masters they serve.
* - will say anything and sell anyone to get what they want.
He means the joos, probably reffered to vaguely as "the elites". Or maybe the COMMUNIST COMPUTER GANGSTER GOD. In either case expect to be told to wallow in your ignorance or linked to a youtube video if you don't think either controls the world.
Well...
you guys are wallowing in your ignorance, on that you're right at least. The rest? No.
Enjoy!
-
Left/Right.... yea no.
Here:
Bernie is a commie stooge
Johnson is a stooge.
Hillary is a corrupt opportunist*
Macron is a corrupt opportunist*
All are puppets of the same masters. Only the type of strings are slightly different between the first two who are idealists to a degree and largely ignorant of the strings, and latter two who have no sincere ideals but are quite aware of the masters they serve.
* - will say anything and sell anyone to get what they want.
-
The evil copyright people got my previous video, they won't get this one though.
Enjoy!
-
So my long (few dozen) lucky running streak of no rain during outdoor shows I attend was broken last night. Early-mid song the skies opened up, first a few sprinkles but soon a steady pour, coupled with a prominent rainbow across the heavens. Not long into the next song (Dire Wolf) the rain ended, never to return for the rest of the evening, replaced by a series of rainbows, puffy clouds, blues skies, then stars....
I must say, I do not think my luck has run out!
The second set of this show was killer. John Mayer owns it.
If you're even a little bit a Head: See these guys if you can while you can. You'll be thankful you did! -
If you like the Dead, and haven't heard this set before, it's time you did:
-
Politics Episode 7: Remake of Episode 4
in Way Off-Topic
Posted · Edited by Valsuelm
huh?
I didn't realize they were 10ft tall.
lol