Jump to content

Dnaguy

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    8939
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dnaguy

  1. This and maybe burning to death have to be the shittiest ways to go. Or maybe engulfment where you don’t immediately die. Nightmare fuel.
  2. Purposely trying to make these guys look in shape. They’re using a wide angle lens holding the phone over their head to try and get these fat fucks to not look like Jaba the hut.
  3. Which roads did you take. Haven’t ever seen any meander keys in the Texas hill country…. But I am usually taking 281 to 290 from San Antonio.
  4. When he started to talk about base running:
  5. Georgia looks to subscribe to the Jonesian philosophy of student athletics.
  6. Bumping a reparations topic: Tell me that Republicans are losing their caravan / open borders / invasion fastball without telling me that Republicans are losing their caravan / open borders / invasion fastball.
  7. Biden and Obama came through in telling the insurance companies to shove it up the ass. Promises made. Promises kept. Biden 2024
  8. Maybe they just forgot to tell him?
  9. Isn’t that the on the city crest of Gary, Indiana? “Gary: Looks closed down, but we’re actually still open…. You probably shouldn’t be here”
  10. Even if Napoleon and Hitler hadn't invaded Russia, we have no idea how ware would have turned out. 😬
  11. @Joyce This. The legal system is not about innocence. It's about guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Funny how the goal posts are moved for the Orange dotard when it comes to insurrection, but the documents case for JB comes down to statements about proving innocence. What a transparent fucking.
  12. If you take an originalist POV, the ambiguity is on purpose and must be perceived in a manner as to give it a WIDE latitidude. That's why this is all Calvinball. Alito, Thomas, K-dawg, ACB, J Robs, and G-money should all look at this in the frame of: "The writers of the 14th amendment had all the political will, latitude, and incentive to write this as they deemed fit. They could have been very, VERY, limited in their scope of what the 14th amendment should be. Should it be for those convicted? Should their be a very fine definition of 'insurrection'? Would one need to be found guilty in some sort of impeachment like trial?. The answer to all of these is no. The writers wrote: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." Engaged in. Not convicted of. Not proven beyond a reasonable doubt of. Hell, the 'given aid and comfort to the enemies' is so incredibly broad in its language that it shows just what they wanted IMO. They didn't want or thought the union could withstand the odiousness of anyone who would not uphold the constitution. Hard stop. And the idea that we'd allow someone who stoked a plot to storm the capital and try to stop the certification of an election AND (and here's the real damning part IMO) engaged in a plot to field illegitimate electors so as to install himself as president is something of an anathema of what the intent of the 14th is and WAS. Any pedantic parsing that the justices pontificate is nothing short of vile, villainous, and vacillating. It's a total microcosm of our times. A time where statesmen are lacking. There is no courage in our leadership. OUr government is all cock and no balls because we're so far removed from a true existential struggle for what it is to be an American citizen. My grandfathers who fought WW2 knew what this country stood for. My parents and boomers who inherited a prize do not. GenX could give a shit. My millennial brethren are just bitter on the promise we were told that hasn't materialized. And GenZ doesn't know if they should swipe left, care, make a TikTok about it, or play roulette on their last score b/c it might just have Fentylnol in it. The answer is obvious, IMO, if we open our eyes to the reality / scope fo the problem. We're so wrapped up, however, in our own deluding bullshit to see it or even more sadly ... to care.
  13. You're both right in that a Doocy is the name of an actual person / lineage of people ANNNNNND the name of any generic pasty white guy you'd like to punch in the fucking teeth.
  14. You’re not stupid. You're not bad. It’s not your fault you’re not rich. If you believe hard enough good things will happen. There are forces working against you. You're actually good even if you’ve done bad. Wait. Are you telling me MAGA and religion are similar?
  15. it’s always nice to find humor in the little things
  16. Was he also wearing a tan suit while using those nasty curse words?! 1,X
  17. Huh? What’s cost intuition crisis?
  18. Yes you’re right. But if congress didn’t pass a law to enforce it, violating it wouldn’t result in a criminal offense. You’d still be able to sue for your freedom but just because it exists doesn’t make having slaves a crime. Separations of powers means congress must make a law against it and the executive branch has to then enforce it.
  19. No doubt. But the rub is that one not need to violate the LAW of insurrection to have violated constitutional definition of insurrection. If anything the constitutional definition can be more ambiguous or loosely defined and the criminal be more narrow…. Just not visa versa. The thing that sucks here is that bc there is a law definition of insurrection that people and seemingly these justices want to apply it to the constitution and that’s not how this should work. Taking a very originality perspective should lead one to come to the conclusion that Bc the amendment doesn’t spell out a specific def, that the court should defer to those judges or lower government officials who decide what a constitutional definition of insurrection is unless it is so egregious so as to in no way be determined to be insurrection. For them to overrrule Colorado is super activist IMO is antithetical to just calling balls and strikes.
  20. But those are crimes independent of the actual constitution. Congress had to pass those. And they had to agree with the constitution. If you violate the constitution, you haven’t committed a criminal act. However, you may have violated a federal law that was written to protect the constitution. Does that make sense? If you enslave another human, you will have broken the law bc you’ve violated the civil rights act or other laws around unlawful detention etc. You won’t be prosecuted for breaking the 13th amendment. Thats my distinction.
×
×
  • Create New...