949havoc

To do so is unconstitutional. Violates Article I, Sections 2 & 3, and Article IV, section 3.

Who is "they?" To me, anyone violating the law, local, state, federal, is in violation of the Constitution. Ramshutu's #52 spells out what that is so; no need to repeat what he said.

Yes, that is what is written, which is one reason why I oppose the MEEP. The standard is dumbed down. 30 day ban for threat against another member, violent, or not? No, I. disagree.

If those Americans do not abide by the law, yes, the Constitution can and should be used against them. The Constitution is THE legal standard against which human action is either compliant, or not. There is no excuse, ever, for lawlessness, even if the government is not abiding by its precepts. The means to correct the government by the people by peaceful means is demonstrated and ought to be followed, always.

You're talking about two separate maturity indicators, biology and psychology, that do not necessarily fire simultaneously, informed, or not, just as I've indicated biology and law do not necessarily fire simultaneously. informed, or not. You cannot make it so in mere argument.

My apologies. I completely missed your sarcasm.

Yes, you're right. I missed the sarcasm completely.

Your #1 is a clear indicator that the world does not lack sufficient resources; it lacks efficient resource distribution, and that primarily due to greed.

Yes.

I speak to him multiple times daily, to the extent that its gone beyond knowing him as a father; he's Dad. The communication is not one-way. Not that I always have response, because I don't, sometimes. But I have had a frequency that assures me I am being heard, understood, and answered. Often, the answer is no, not now, or occasionally no, not at all, stop asking. But often enough, the answer is yes, and that agreement has often been a challenge to do more myself to serve him. And I never approach without being grateful for what I've already received. More often than not, all such communications are nothing but being grateful. I've learned to ask for nothing, and that, alone, has brought abundant blessing.

Just as there should be no limit to the amount of money someone has - because the money supply itself has no limit, neither should there be a limit to the number of houses one person can own. How does limiting owned homes one person can own help the price of a home? There are eight factors that contribute most to the value of a given home:

1. Comparable sales, the relative prices of similar recent sold homes in the neighborhood

2. Location, location, location

3. Usable size/space of home

4. Age / condition of the home

5. Upgrades

6. Local market, a larger area than the comps in neighborhood - see #1

7. Economic indicators

8. Interest rate

Note that among these, who currently owns the home, or how many homes they currently own is of little value because their locations probably differ, which adjusts everything else.

No more absurd than that Biden said it of himself. Does that absurdity rate being cognitively challenged?

I'm American, for 400 years; before America was America. Nope, your routine does not describe me, so don't include me in that bitter group who read the Constitution with a blindfold.

You mean we'd all have hairy legs like Joe Biden and love to have children rub them while telling lifeguard stories?

Thanks, but I'll pass. He should have.

Back at ya, bud.

Rubbish. Poppycock. Marxist propaganda. A crying wolf.

We know nothing of the sort with any certainty. You've just forced Darwin off the bus, denying us, the most adaptive species on Earth due to our intelligence, of the most corrective capability of any species: adaptation.

If there is one ideal, perfect climate that is such for all species all over the world, what is it, and where has it been such that we can recover it and duplicate it everywhere on Earth?

The Earth's multiple climates have historically seen, just by ice core samples we have studied, greater climate fluctuation in our historic past than we see now, yet, Earth survived.

Not only is world overpopulation a myth, the world population is in decline.

We do not have an overpopulation issue, we have an Earth resource distribution issue, most due to greed. Fix that; the Earth can heal herself.

Curious how those who declare the need to de-populate the Earth of humans are the last to join the forced extinction line. Huh. What, not in your back yard, but everyone else must? Sorry, your alarm is just a little self-serving.

to my knowledge, yes. But, I let dead dogs alone.

If you mean my #13, it was mostly tongue-in-cheek, although I happen to believe kant can't. philosophize, that is.

No, not nothing. It's the best damn evidence there is: personal experience with detailed, professional observation and testing.

You ignore that in the preponderance of pregnancy cases, there was a prior choice of engaging sexual activity prior to the pregnancy, whether "protected" - like a vaccination, or not, since every single conception preventative has a failure rate but one, abstinence - so the argument that a woman is "forced" into carriage to term is disingenuous in the overwhelming majority of cases.

One's politics have little to do with relative intelligence, nor with the wisdom associated with that intelligence. So, no, I would not decide to support a presidential candidate on intelligence, alone. Having executive experience, better in the privater sector, speaks loudly to me, as one of several measures.

That you don't see how the concepts of imposing the vaccine, and refusing abortion, are related is in your camp to decipher, not mine. What ideas can be brought to any given thread are not owned by anyone, particularly when the accuser is not the author of the other thread, but I see no ownership regardless of who starts a thread.

That said, I see a definitive link because both processes are being treated as mandates because anyone opposing abortion is branded as taking away a woman's right to her body, but anyone refusing to take the vaccine is branded as a heretic, not as one who also sees an invasion on their right to privacy of their body.

As it happens, I've had the vaccine, I merely argue for those who think it is a choice they should be allowed to make for their own reasons just as some women feel it is their right to choose to abort, or not, and not have anyone climb down their throat for it. It is the hypocrisy of defending abortion while proclaiming non-vaccinators as heretics. You don't see that? That's on you, bud.

"We?" Who's "we", you and the bullshit?

Thus, the existence of higher courts of appeal than your bullshit judge. The system works, and is adequately documented, and when it doesn't work, it has defined the means of change. That it happens outside your little defined world of bullshit and its schedule is just the way it is. The Constitution was not constructed in a day. Nor are its functions. it's called patience, because men are not better angels, and until they are - and that includes you, my friend...

The Constitution, particularly Article III, was written in 1788, compounded and confused by two centuries of language drift. It must be understood as written, not as twisted by modern language. That is the true consideration of originalism, my friend. Think like an eighteenth century lawyer, not a 21st bus-full of them.

Because, quite simply, that is the current status of state law. Which is why the Supreme Court exists, as the Constitution defines; to be the final arbiter if either litigant wants to take the case to its extreme and can justify its elevation, which is their given right.

Thank you. But, typical that two doctors may not agree. Science is in the same boat as law; subject to opinion. I liker yours.

But, a single judge on SCOTUS can do nothing. As Ramshutu told you, SCOTUS is the final legal authority, not some state judge, as I told you. And SCoTUS acts as a quorum. Don't mix your metaphors.

Yes. the Constitution's purpose is well understood. Why can decisions be reversed? Because that is the will of a free society. Law changes, my friend, it is not an absolute. Truth is absolute, but not law. The distinction is, as Madison so rightly concluded, if men were better angels, they would not need law; they would govern themselves correctly by true principles without need of any law but natural law; that by which even God governs himself.

And that is why BLM and 1619 are out in the weeds. This nation was not established in 1619, and when it was established, officially, in 1788, it mentioned not one word regarding slavery. The word, in fact, does not exist in the document, until the XIIIth amendment, in 1865, abolishing the practice.

"Vice is a monster of such frightful mien..."

That you're willing to embrace just to be seen. So what?

Ramshutu's #22 is perfectly sensible and correct.

I'll add that, contrary to your assumption of SCOTUS bias one way or another [and using a CA state judge to exemplify your position is a mixed metaphor - you should stick with the supremes if that is your point - and they have, at times, made horrible judgments, but then, they have reversed themselves some 200 times in their history, so, they do have a way of correction, and it basically works over time. Further, you might be aware, but I'll bet you're not, that the decision ratio of SCOTUS has its highest plurality in unanimous decisions at 59%, so the idea of rogue justices carrying the Court is just wrong. For example, the infamous Roe v. Wade of 1973 happened to have been decided primarily by justices who were appointed by Repub presidents - 4 of the 7. So, politics on the Court sometimes fools everyone. Not to mention that several justices have said publicly since, including Ginsberg, that Roe v. Wade may not have been fully justified in its 1973 decision and ought to be revisted - another reversal in the cards?

Seems within three quarters, Biden's popularity is upside-down.

This entire idea of banning seems infantile. Why bother? If this forum is truly a free exchange of ideas, one must expect that someone, sometime, is going to say something offensive to someone else. How the offended reacts tells the tale. Retaliation is typical. My fucking big stick is bigger than yours - and take that allegory to its most absurd limit. Counter-retaliation is also typical - and take that to its most absurd limit. Eventually, one is going to tire of the other, and may do so permanently. Seems to me, the matter has resolved itself merely by one dismissing the other out of hand. And, just as eventually, the other is going to finally get the hint and back off, or look entirely stupid to the rest of the community. Self-immolation.

Do mods really want to get in the middle of that? Why?

You are blending biology and law - never a valid attempt because law cannot fully inform biology, nor the reverse. They are entirely different concepts having entirely different bases in fact. Therefore, a fallacious argument.

Don't get me wrong, I oppose pedophilia, but it is not, to me, a matter of consent, because I know 12 year-olds who have consent solidly established, and others, at 21, who do not even think yet in such terms, and probably never will, simply because law cannot universally inform biology.

I entirely agree, but, our new gender definitions, with the likes of AOC now calling women "people who menstruate," as if any other real gender can, let alone would menstruate, just to avoid the "w" word, as if that gender no longer exists. The great god Kant is now calling the tune. Seems to me, Kant is more logical if rendered as Can't.

The entire concept of privacy in cyberspace is an oxymoron. There just isn't. So beyond that idiotic fear, I have two comments:

1. Apple just makes the best damn reliable products in the field of computing that exist.

2. Don't do stuff online you would later regret having out there.

That kind of argument is the notion that the fetus is a parasite - nonsense. A woman's natural features include the pre-natal nurturing of fetal development, so, the entire concept of "right" never enters the room. In the case of rape, which can include incest - and that accounts for little more than 1% of all pregnancies - there may be an argument, but, otherwise, when mutual consent is involved, the woman has already passed beyond a decision of use of her body.

Not according to Biden, unless he allows the exemption, himself. In other words, a despot.

There is a third option: that it was a naturally occurring virus whose distribution has been designed/manufactured.

Or a fourth: the virus was both designed/manufactured and manipulated in distribution.

I'm not limited by the clowns who devised the TV show, Ancient Aliens, who think humans are too dumb to think of anything technical, it's all alien influence.

What "law" did Biden pass? He's not in Congress anymore, and has no legislative authority. You mean a policy? An EO? What

Or, have some of you not been listening when some members of the Supreme Court, including Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in her time, have publicly argued that Roe v. Wade may have had errors in its justification, and ought to be addressed by them. Just need the right case before them to make changes to the precedent.

If Democrats want to be so in-your-face insistent that a woman has a right to the privacy of her body - even though the fetus within it, if she's pregnant, is not in any way part of her body, and just containing it does not make part of, boys and girls, and whatever, but, SCOTUS was not smart enough in 1973 to consider all that, and, in fact, ignored it, but, they're considering it now - then any person, male, female, whatever, has the right to refuse another invasive procedure, a vaccine. Once you've opened the door, boys and girls, it is available to pass through it. That's how you constructed Roe v. Wade, so, either change it, or live with its unconsidered side consequences.

In fact, membrane distillation is a relatively cheap process that will both purify urine and desalinate ocean water for potability.

Too risky? Uh, huh, a likely story. But that's not what Biden promised, is it? So, he 's not talking to his DS, is he? He said all would be taken out before the military left, Fail.

It is the "banned within the last year" that is the issue, not that someone has been banned at all. Make it a longer period of time from the banning incident. One year is not nearly long enough.

Who says, with any credibility, at 8B, the Earth is overpopulated? Nonsense. We don't have a population issue. Our problem is resource distribution, mostly limited by greed. For most of our essential resources, this is the real problem. Just two examples:

1. Almost yearly, the lower Mississippi valley of the U.S. experiences flooding at great annual expense. Why haven't we constructed aqueducts from the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri to the southwest, where water is in limited supply. That cost is dwarfed by the flood mitigation.

2. There are many places in the world where fresh water is in limited supply. Desalinization is now a very cheap process, yet we avoid doing it, jealous of the cost of fresh water - a greedy consequence of refusing to apply a simple technology.

Good intro. I'm going to borrow it

To be clear, seems allowing any officer of DebateArt to have been recently banned in some historic period of time, too recent in my opinion, is just evidence of irrational accommodation. These positions ought to be exemplary members. A banned condition does not meat that standard.

You have to ask? Yes.

He promised to get all Americans out. Fail. He never promised to get all equipment out, and did not. Fail. 

I realize there may be Americans who don't want to get out. , and not much can be done about that. But, private individuals are doing the DOS job, getting Americans who want to get out out, and DOS is trying to block that. Why? Fail.

Watergate, itself, was certainly real, but the journalistic approach to it was the start of the failure of journalism. Bradlee, the editor of the WaPo, was old school, when journalists still dug for background to assure a story was real, had real players who were doing bad thins, and could report with integrity. Woodward and Bernstein were both new school, who would publish on the say-so of sources. Bradlee kept them in line, mostly, but we have no editors like Bradlee anymore,, hence the nonsense of BLM and 1619.

Easy to second-guess what history would have been on another track, which is exactly how we get BLM, 1619 project, Watergate, and so on.