MyNameIsNobody Posted June 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 The bulk collection of U.S. Citizen data (at HUGE expense) has stopped exactly ZERO attacks on the U.S...... ZERO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonal Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 Forget BBQ meth, In my crazy state on spare the air days they might be looking for actual BBQ chicken or the like so they can issue a fine or perhaps you have a fire in your fire place on Christmas day and they can infrared your chimney and issue a fine. I doubt I will ever be attacked by an American serviceman but I'm not so sure about some CIA controlled drone. There is no doubt we are moving closer to a police state. Auto insurance companies are already trying to get their customers to plug in recording devices with the idea you can prove what a good driver you are and they will lower your rates. I think its pretty obvious the other side of that coin. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantom Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 LORD, I humbly ask that this not turn into another Little Timmy thread...... 'Nobody' wants that.... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted June 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 No swearing, no religious ridicule, no perceived sexism, no gratuitous death videos and discussion...Anybody see Timmy here? Nobody doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted June 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 Oh Andy...make me a liar... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted June 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 He's Pavlovian to the call of his name David....Like U.S. response to WMD. No first strike, but look out because a response WILL follow...scratch that. We deserved it would be the response (with words)...and we are sorry we made you resort to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 An FBI buddy of mine told me they were going to offer you the job but after checking you out on MS they feared you would only track down fat chicks That would require a really, really, wide angle lens! Clarence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted June 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 Was this for me? If it was you lost me? Maybe I should've used smiley faces () so you guys would know it was supposed to be funny? A frivolous, off the wall comment made from a lighthearted humorous spirit. I used to be funny? Maybe I just thought I was funny? Keeping the day job ... Yeah, the government is out of control, after 9-1-1 we gave away our freedom for security ... It's so sad and so obvious, I can't even talk about it anymore. I love what Rand Paul did by shutting down their little government - invasion of privacy - spy power game for a few days ... But it was all,for nothing. We've lost control of our government ... It's beyond our reach ... Game over for freedom and liberty ... I was joking with you man. I am not very funny either (except to myself)...Clever, not working out well for me But I remembered the smiley face... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted June 15, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 This has the makings of a new dare I say..........."Timmy" thread, gulp! Clarence Hey cross-eyed lion...check out the Barry S. article thread...Oh yeah, you already did...what a piece of work you are.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbs007 Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 As far as the original question, I'm with nobody. Not seeing many people agree here but I'd like to think there are a lot of people doing so anonymously. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted June 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 I wonder if 3rd class medical made it to the Supreme Court what they would say? I wonder.... Hmmmmmm.... Good one. I mean two. Or not. Good week for the other team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted June 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 2015.June The year words ceased to have meaning. Or value... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFromCB Posted June 26, 2015 Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 2015.June The year words ceased to have meaning. Or value... Relax, not so long ago "well regulated" lost its meaning too...Your side got a major win when second amendment was applied to states with no factual/legal basis. Ready for president Bernie Sanders, yet? Some of my very liberal friends are very, very funny... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted June 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 you met one progressive socialist.... You've met them all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted June 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 2nd amendment seems pretty clear in it's writing. Wasn't the Constitution written for The United State(s) of America? The peckers keep pecking... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted June 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 "The rights of the people to keep and bare arms shall NOT be infringed." Like I said, Words have NO MEANING.... In a progressive utopia. Next... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFromCB Posted June 26, 2015 Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 "The rights of the people to keep and bare arms shall NOT be infringed." Like I said, Words have NO MEANING.... In a progressive utopia. Next... Actually, no it was not. As it was written, it only applied to federal government and did not apply to states until the 14th amendment was passed and then only piece by piece. Read "Barron v Baltimore". Only with 14th amendment, was the bill of rights slowly incorporated to apply to state laws. I knows my history. I didn't go to public school. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." So if Bill of Rights did not apply of States, but only to federal government, and yet the founders used the word State to mean the Federal United States, you can see how the Supremes found the whole "State Exchange" issue confusing. You're Welcomed, Sir. BTW, if you really think about, USA was founded as a progressive utopia...I'm pretty positive the conservatives all over the world were screaming on top of their lungs on July 4th, 1776 about some liberal wackos in the new world. Well, more likely around September, 1776, being it was before Twitter. I think todays ruling was not constitutionally well founded. I wish Kennedy would have stayed out of it, and then Roberts would have to have been the 5th vote. And he would have been. But it would been ruled on Full Faith and Credit clause, leaving marriage up to state laws, but forcing them to recognize marriages from other states. Just like some states do not let cousins marry, but have to recognize cousins legally married in other states. Then the dominos would have fallen pretty quickly, but not based on "dignity". But whatever, end result would have been the same. Which is great. Time for a beer, or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooneymite Posted June 26, 2015 Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 Here's what one of our SCOTUS justices thinks of our freedom to govern ourselves: "Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine — of the Court's claimed power to create "liberties" that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves." Justice Scalia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFromCB Posted June 26, 2015 Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 Here's what one of our SOCUS justices thinks of our freedom to govern ourselves: "Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine — of the Court's claimed power to create "liberties" that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves." Justice Scalia. Scalia has never seen a freedom he would like not curtailed in some way or another which is funny for the job he has chosen. Quite frankly the supreme court has one power and one power only. Ability to strike down laws, and laws by their very definition can only be restrictive, for if something is not illegal, it is permitted. Today they struck down a bunch of laws limiting rights of certain group of individuals. They did not infringe on anyone else rights. Being a constitutional republic, there are limits to how we can govern ourselves. It works both ways. Chicago and other cities now have to allow guns within their limits even though majority their of population have chosen not to allow them. Majority does not always rule. That's called pure democracy and makes for a terrible form of government. Nobody lost anything with the decision made today. Rights were only expanded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooneymite Posted June 26, 2015 Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 Hmmmm. Your response seems to be a reaction to the issue recently decided. Scalia is commenting on judicial over-reach, or what some call "judicial activism". He further clarified by saying: "With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them — with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the 'reasoned judgment' of a bare majority of this Court — we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence." Regardless of the issues decided, if the law is not followed, we all need to be concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFromCB Posted June 26, 2015 Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 Hmmmm. Your response seems to be a reaction to the issue recently decided. Scalia is commenting on judicial over-reach, or what some call "judicial activism". He further clarified by saying: "With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them — with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the 'reasoned judgment' of a bare majority of this Court — we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence." Regardless of the issues decided, if the law is not followed, we all need to be concerned. All SCOTUS and appeal court decisions are "judicial activism". That is the only thing they can do. Strike down a law, or uphold a law. They have no other powers. It's only "judicial activism" for the side that lost. What else can the appeal courts do? Once again, their only power is "judicial activism" and on SCOTUS level, they are not bound by anything, including precedent and the constitution per se, as they are the final interpreters of it and if it's written, it can be interpreted in at least 2 ways, but more than likely many more. When SCOUTS starts inserting laws (limiting anything) into the books, then, and only then, would their be outside of their powers. So far, they have never done it. Even 2+2 does not always equal 4, if you're looking at it from the point of view of quantum physics. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted June 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 Religion lost today. The definition of marriage that has been practiced for thousands of years lost today. The courts will settle out the ongoing battles that will dominate for years and years to come. I don't belong to any religious "clubs"...but I respect their right to exist and have "rules" that guide them. THEY lost today. To state otherwise is disingenuous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted June 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 Most importantly STATES RIGHTS lost today. Five black robes and the Federal Government stomped. DON'T TREAD ON ME. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsNobody Posted June 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 WORDS have no meaning... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFromCB Posted June 26, 2015 Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 Religion lost today. The definition of marriage that has been practiced for thousands of years lost today. The courts will settle out the ongoing battles that will dominate for years and years to come. I don't belong to any religious "clubs"...but I respect their right to exist and have "rules" that guide them. THEY lost today. To state otherwise is disingenuous. How did they lose? This is the argument I have never understood and I guess never will. The lost nothing. When they got "greedy" and decided to turn marriage into a civil institution long time ago for tax brakes and other government "perks", they lost the ownership of the word "marriage". Every time a Catholic got divorced in civil courts, religion lost before as well. Lost double when they got remarried. What gives religion ownership of marriage, and which religion, too should be the arbitrator of standards? Religion gets no ownership in our government and our laws, see the first amendment. Many religions are perfectly fine with gay marriage. Did religion also lose in the states that actually voted on gay marriage and passed the laws allowing it in their legislature. You do understand "Full Faith and Credit", it's right in the constitution. States have to recognize other states legal documents, so even if gay marriage is to be illegal in one state, the state must recognize marriages performed in other states. This happens all the time when people move and divorce. All it takes for one state to legalize gay marriage, and all other states constitutional amendments defining the world marriage were violating our federalist setup. This is the same reason why your drivers license is valid in South Dakota. For all intents and purposes, not a damn thing changed for the religious. They can keep all their rules, but they do not get to apply their rules to others. DON'T TREAD ON ME. And BTW, marriage precedes most current religions and the current Almighty. He's only been around for about 4000 years. There have been many prior to him. Most are now dead. Not so Almighty after all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.