Andy9o8

OK, how does this differ from this thread? The King changes ACA once again Just wondering. Or is it like a gun thread; you can never have enough? Eh, but far be it for me to criticize. No siree, not me. Post away. Anyhow, quade's and kelp's answers are correct.

You've got it nailed; there's really not much secret about it. Of course they don't really believe any of that shit. They have their fools and Ditto-heads that they need to keep fed with fresh meat, so they think this shit up. They have a good laugh among themselves at what a crock of shit it is, then they serve it up to their regulars, who eagerly lap it up like the morons they are. Then they laugh at the suckers taking it seriously (their regular viewers)... all the way to the bank.

It depends on how you want to make that "adjusted for inflation" calculation. $20 in 1789 could have reasonably had the power to purchase 20 acres of decent land. It was a significant sum. Enough money to actually warrant the time and effort of a jury trial. Thus, my first point- that that part wasn't well-tooled. QuoteWhen was the last time you saw anybody demand and get a jury trial in a civil case involving $20? Not very often. But I've been doing this long enough to have seen quite a bit. People get mightily outraged and indignant in small claims court. Occasionally you will hear of someone who, at whatever procedural point that state's civil rules provide the chance, will demand a jury trial on a lower-value small claim. Ultimately, they're entitled to it.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tNhUJjoaLCA/UCyBXhH_JcI/AAAAAAAAAYE/aMw5Wq5N1TA/s1600/PDVD000.BMP

Fair point: not just "don't burn the site", but don't damage it, either. That point was made in the comments, to which a "rebutter" speculated that the business owner probably got more than $10k worth of publicity out of the deal. Sigh. Attaboy, dude, for missing the point.

Sorry, that wasn't what I meant. I'll take the blame for that for being vague. I'm completely on your side, and I was addressing almost everyone in the thread. I wasn't being critical, I was being coyly cryptic. I'm now transmitting my actual point to you via telepathy. Hope you receive 5/5.

Yep. This thread has been a stimulating intellectual exercise, but it all pretty much misses the mark.

"... shut the fuck up or better still swallow bleach " Bwahaha!! We don't need no stinkin' moderators!

Absolutely. We have stuff ready for hurricane/power-out situations as well. We also have a hiking bag, with all the necessities for a hike except for the food, so that we don't have to go looking if we want to go somewhere. And I don't discuss personal gun access choices. Wendy P. Ahhh....hiding them from the man....smart. I view it more as competition for resources, and securing one's own. Personally, I think anyone who gives out too much info to his friends or neighbors about not just personal weapons, but personal stores of food, water, batteries, etc. is being pretty foolish. I don't believe in Zombie Apocalypse or Red Dawn coming at us, but S does HTF.

I give Paul more credit for putting serious thought and energy into the discussions here than perhaps you do.

Many do, myself among them, but if that was really the case there wouldn't be so many conservative state legislators who seek to enact such laws and governors willing to sign them into law - either because that's the way they personally feel or because they think that's how the majority of their voting constituents feel.

7th is ridiculously quaint as is the 3rd. I don't think either is quaint. The only thing about the 3rd Amendment (right to jury trial in civil cases; jury's findings of fact not re-examinable) that's quaint is that there's no provision for adjusting the threshold dollar amount for inflation. ($20 in 1792 dollars is worth a little under $300 today.) Oopsie, that was a bit myopic. But other than that, it's bang-on relevant to modern times. The 7th Amendment, prohibiting quartering of soldiers in private homes w/o owner's permission during peacetime, or in wartime except as provided by specific statute, still has relevance in the abstract, if you use a bit of foresight. Remember, in the 1970s - 1990s who'd-a thunk we'd ever again see the kind of abuses like the internment of Japanese-ancestry civilians during WWII or the McCarthy-era abuses of the law of the 1950s. And then came 9/11/2001, and the pendulum swung right back that way. (Patriot Act, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, waterboarding, indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, NSA abuses, etc.). So Yes, I can envision some not-unrealistic scenarios in which an overbearing and overreaching government might abuse the property of civilians in the name of "necessity" or "security" if not kept in check by the 7th Amendment.

You really want to take this to Speaker's Corner? This issue is best addressed by our community as a team effort, and preferably with some adult maturity. If your approach is to announce that half of your teammates can just go fuck themselves right from the get-go, then maybe the best place for you is on the sidelines. We have a common goal, and a common opponent. The first step toward "divide and conquer" is to divide. Doing it to your own team is pretty boneheaded.

If I liked them that much, I'd take a needle and thread to them.

Your second sentence is pure semantics, Sir.

Makes perfect sense to me. 'Course she forgot to mention queers, but whateva.

Wasn't so long ago that the IRA was setting off bombs in crowded places in Belfast, Londonderry, London, Birmingham... and killing random collections of civilians. If, in fairness, you're referring to the same morality that led to British troops - the fathers and grandfathers of the generation caught up in "The Troubles" - committing atrocities in the 20th Century against Irish and Indian civilians, then I'd agree. Atrocities are always atrocities; but brutally, they usually don't occur in a vacuum.

"For dickheads, we've been flying passengers..." WHAT???? Wow. That is REALLY accommodating! Oh. "Decades". Never mind.

In fairness to Dav's () point, if the governor was really standing on his beliefs, he'd add his name to the list of political Profiles in Courage by irreversibly commuting all of their sentences. Instead, he half wimped out and simply enacted a policy that might not extend a single day after he leaves office. His successor(s) can still sign death warrants for those defendants. Mind, you, I still laud what he did (for broad policy reasons I won't get into here), but it's half a loaf.

So . . . just keep reading about polls until your point is proven, then stop, right? Not at all. It really is pretty evenly split. This isn't just guessing on my part. I grew up in upstate New York. Like many states, New York is really very much a Purple State, not unlike, for example, Illinois, with large urban centers, lots of suburbs and huge rural areas. Some liberal areas, both lots of moderates and LOTS of conservatives. The politics reflect that; state-wide, the Dems and Repubs are about evenly matched in both raw numbers of voters and power. So, prevailing attitudes in NY on a statewide basis on just about everything, including gun laws, reflect that.

There are several other polls and articles in the hit, not just those 2. Keep reading.

Comparing the two is a bit of stretch, don't ya think???. He doesn't care. To them, there's no poke at Obama that's a non-sequitur. Whatever. Just because Obama said it, doesn't mean he was the ONLY democrat that said it. Do you not understand "non sequitur"?

Bwahahahah . . . oh that's a good one. Seriously. HR doesn't even need to call you in for an interview to discriminate today. With social media it's all too easy to eliminate any candidate you want for whatever petty reason you want and there is absolutely no legal recourse. Well, that's really always been the case. Resumes and applications list education or graduation years. So that's basically age right there. And the minority of people who omit dates from education are presumed to be at least well into middle age anyway.

Noisy enough that it's credible. Beyond that, it's usually just faking it. Ah, yes. Bravo.

Comparing the two is a bit of stretch, don't ya think???. He doesn't care. To them, there's no poke at Obama that's a non-sequitur. Whatever.