Forgive those that trespass? Not in AZ

[Felch]

I feel no urge to prove that I'm a physicist, as I've personally met a number of people here. But if you want to quiz me on a subject of your choosing, then feel free. My specialty is Higgs sector phenomenology, especially the phenomenology of cascade decays in the Higgs sector at the LHC.

And somehow he finds time to get laid, too.

Can we wrap this discussion up with some sort of consensus? Like, can we all agree that we hate people darker than Daniel Jackling? It makes life easy when you can walk around with a guy's picture, hold it up to a stranger's face, and decide whether or not you like that person. And isn't making life easy what racism is all about?

[zakubandit]

Fine, you want me to cede defeat, whatever. All I get is that what I read, what I interpret is wrong or off base. And the replies to this will be "of course they are" "****". So it doesn't even matter. Your all genius' and not a thing I know is right. I just read all my facts from coloring books. I can't form cognitive thought. Whatever. I must have gotten major brain damage at some point in my life, because I just can't keep up with all this mass intellect. You guys got me in a corner, I admit defeat, I am so very wrong. Please show me the light, help me fix the errors of my ways. Maybe Obama can sit me on his knee and make all the bad things go away.

[Kuciwalker]

Please show me the light, help me fix the errors of my ways.

I already did.

[Felch]

Fine, you want me to cede defeat, whatever. All I get is that what I read, what I interpret is wrong or off base. And the replies to this will be "of course they are" "****". So it doesn't even matter. Your all genius' and not a thing I know is right. I just read all my facts from coloring books. I can't form cognitive thought. Whatever. I must have gotten major brain damage at some point in my life, because I just can't keep up with all this mass intellect. You guys got me in a corner, I admit defeat, I am so very wrong. Please show me the light, help me fix the errors of my ways. Maybe Obama can sit me on his knee and make all the bad things go away.

You're not a ******, you're just intensely gullible whenever retards tell you things. There's a difference. Sometimes we ignore that difference and apply the commutative property of retardation, and call you a ******.

[Arrian]

THERE IT IS. Kuci, thank you. You yourself just said that the people have no right or vote? That the people don't mean jack squat to having new laws or amendments being ratified?

Holy ****, did you just discover that we live in a representative republic, not a direct democracy?

-Arrian

[Darius871]

Fine, you want me to cede defeat, whatever. All I get is that what I read, what I interpret is wrong or off base. And the replies to this will be "of course they are" "****".

I never said any such thing; so far I've merely asked two simple questions and requested two honest answers, but you won't even respond. Somehow I'm lumped into the ever-growing crowd of "socialists" that are persistently out to get you, merely because I don't necessarily agree 100% with your understanding of dual sovereignty (which is a completely non-political topic by the way, because there can be libertarian unitary states and communist confederations, meaning a powerful federal government does not necessarily equal "liberal" and powerful state governments do not necessarily equal "conservative") and because I'm genuinely curious about the reasoning underlying your point of view. Somehow that makes me the bad guy? All I'm asking for is two answers to two questions, reposted below for your convenience. Without whining to me about insults I never threw, just tell me the answers. What is your position? For the love of god, please don't change the subject. Just answer me directly, so that I may be more informed. That's all I ask. Pretty pretty please with a cherry on top, don't change the subject.

these later amendments that take power from the people and place it in the hands of the federal government are illegal.

Ok, in all politeness, I recognize that many provisions of the Constitution are fairly vague and open to a wide spectrum of differing interpretations. But in all seriousness (with no snide tone whatsoever, no matter how much your sad perpetual siege mentality may lead you mistakenly assume I'm somehow being hostile, even though I've never once called you a "****" despite ample opportunity), I have to ask: what is your "interpretation" of the below provision?

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Please don't respond by reminding me again that you dodged bullets and that automatically makes your opinion superior. Just answer the question directly. Is your position that the 10th Amendment (not the 12th amendment) supersedes an Article of the original Constitution? If so, why? I'm genuinely curious what you think.

You see [a fatally defective ratification process for the 16th Amendment] as a myth, but I have found a bit of factual evidence on it.

Would you care to enlighten us with this bombshell evidence?

Just answer my questions directly, head-on. I am casting no "tones," no insults, no disparaging of your service, just simple, straightforward questions, which by definition elicit answers. What are the answers?

[KrazyHorse]

Unbelievable!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not really, since Slaughterhouse totally gutted that Clause and left enforcing its substance up to the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

(Sorry, but I just couldn't resist the pun. )

Slaughterhouse actually gutted the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the XIV Amendment. The Article IV P&I still has some power.

Just a nitpick

[Blaupanzer]

Fine, you want me to cede defeat, whatever. All I get is that what I read, what I interpret is wrong or off base. And the replies to this will be "of course they are" "****". So it doesn't even matter. Your all genius' and not a thing I know is right. I just read all my facts from coloring books. I can't form cognitive thought. Whatever. I must have gotten major brain damage at some point in my life, because I just can't keep up with all this mass intellect. You guys got me in a corner, I admit defeat, I am so very wrong. Please show me the light, help me fix the errors of my ways. Maybe Obama can sit me on his knee and make all the bad things go away.

I am a veteran too of an earlier war where the foliage made the combat up close and personal. I do not think the experience made me or my colleagues experts on the US constitution. Citing being a veteran or the associated medals or injuries does not make people treat you as an authority in a discussion in which everyone has actual access to the information available.


I happen to think that the illegals are only that way because of the current law. Most of us have ancestors who immigrated here "legally" because the US accepted all comers. Whatever one's views on immigration itself, the guys here have a point that Arizona has no authority to pass ADDITIONAL laws related to illegals. It so happens that current law covers any illegals that break the law, make trouble, or otherwise get arrested. These get deported. As to the rest, why would a man currently located in China care what happens to them? Strongly recommend a "live and let live" philosophy with the weapons in reserve to over escalate if others don't treat you the same.

[molly bloom]

I'm sure someone here who has white man guilt will call you a racist.

Does this mean you believe all illegal immigrants in the U.S. are non-white ?

I'm sure there are a few paleface illegals or overstayers.

[molly bloom]

My specialty is Higgs sector phenomenology, especially the phenomenology of cascade decays in the Higgs sector at the LHC.

That's the kind of cruising area chat-up line I've been looking for.

Along with 'How do you feel about Gustave Caillebotte's really rather under-appreciated contribution to French Impressionism ?"

[Imran Siddiqui]

Molly

[Solomwi]

Wow. Just wow. My head is spinning.

[DinoDoc]

I happen to think that the illegals are only that way because of the current law.

I'm confused. Isn't that why everything illegal is illegal? Why is this comment meaningful in anyway?

[Felch]

It's pretty clear from his context that he's saying the ancestors of many Americans would have been illegal under the current law. You could probably look at how the quotas are structured today, and make an educated guess at what quotas would have been during the great waves of European immigrations, and then come up with a reasonable test of his hypothesis. But I'm too lazy for that, and I suspect you are too.