GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
Member

//

What? You mean San Fran Nan's "Asian hate crimes bill" wasn't enough to assuage Asian American's concerns about rising crime? Seriously? /sarcasm I suspect there will be a significant shift in the Asian American vote this fall.

This belongs here.

Well I'm glad the SCOTUS finally reversed course a little bit.

Why should so many Democrats have to change their party? Lizzy baby should change hers.

The Roe v. Wade "opinion" was written by 9 men, 8 of them white men. Men (especially white men) should have no opinion on abortion. Therefore Roe v. Wade is a invalid "opinion." Make that into a t-shirt and sell it.

Interesting read. But it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. The founders were careful to put the word "congress" in the first amendment and leave it out of the 2nd.

Okay. So what do you think is the relevance of the fact that Nunn v Georgia was a state supreme court decision that recognized that the 2nd amendment applied to the states?

The constitution was ratified as a result of the problems that led to Shays' rebellion. You mentioned "mutual protection" among the states. (I may have your wording off, but I've got the thought.) Shays' was an unpaid Revolutionary War veteran. His local state was still oppressing him and his fellow vets with taxes, he was getting no debt relief from the merchants, and he and other vets were basically watermelon seeds that were being squeezed to hard. In short, the articles of confederation were a provable failure. Yep. There's a lot I don't like about the current system as well. But the "mutual protection" goal that you (and I) agree is necessary for a country, be it federal or confederate, cannot happen either without an individual right to bear arms or a large central military. Over the years the right to keep and bear arms has diminished at the same time the size and scope of the federal military has increased. I don't think that's an accident.

It's the same video....that's still up. :confused: So....who do you think doesn't want who to see it?

Okay. Well part of that existence is the second amendment and I'm happy for that even though you are not. And states cannot effectively execute the "purposes of mutual defense" (as YOU put it), without either A) a large standing army or B) an individual right to bear arms. It simply cannot happen. So...which would you rather have? The 80000000 ton gorilla that is the military industrial complex that we all see going around the world brutalizing everyone, or the "800 pound gorilla", as you described it, pissing on poor New York's ability to brutalize it's own citizens? Take your pick.

Yeah....that won't last long. It will last long enough for the left to realize the right is better armed and better trained.

In bankruptcy, unsecured debts are discharged...as in "forgiven." A student loan is, by definition, an unsecured loan. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/chapter-7-bankruptcy-faq.html Chapter 7 bankruptcy wipes out most types of unsecured debt. Unsecured debts are debts that aren't guaranteed by collateral property. (A mortgage is a secured debt guaranteed by the home; an auto loan is a secured debt guaranteed by a vehicle.) Unsecured debts wiped out by Chapter 7 bankruptcy include credit card debt, medical bills, and gasoline card debt. However, you can't wipe out all unsecured debt. For instance, child and spousal support and student loans (except in limited circumstances) are nondischargeable—you'll remain responsible for repaying them after bankruptcy. Some other debts might not be dischargeable if the creditor objects, such as recent debts for luxury goods, debts incurred based on fraud (such as lying on a credit application or writing a bad check), and tax debts first due within the previous three years. Learn more about which obligations remain after Chapter 7 bankruptcy in What Bankruptcy Can and Cannot Do and When Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Isn't the Right Choice. Here is the secret the politicians forgot to tell you. There were already ways prior to this to get student loan debts discharged even though you couldn't do it through bankruptcy. So this is just doing for everyone what those in the know were already doing for themselves. If your concern is the moral hazard, I agree. But there is a moral hazard built into the system the other way too. It's too easy to get a student loan in the first place precisely because they lenders know they are federally guaranteed. The lenders aren't worried about whether or not there is a potential for payout later. The entire SYSTEM is broken. There are some IT schools that have figured this out. They let students go to school for free, help them find jobs, then contract with their new employers to deduct from their salaries later. The schools only get paid if the students get paid. If the student flunks out of school? No money for the school. If the student can't find a job? No money for the school. Job placement becomes the profit center for the school as opposed to an afterthought that typically does a half-ass job of placing students. See:

So by your logic (which I agree with to some extent), if this voluntary community allows members to own slaves (as did the southern states) and it acts by force to return those slaves to their "owners" (i.e. fugitive slave laws) then it doesn't count as a voluntary community. Which is what existed prior to the civil war including under the Articles of Confederation. And at what point do you think that usurpation happened? The civil war? LOL. What turned into a "constitutional convention" was initially just a meeting to amend the Articles of Confederation. But rather than being amended, they were scrapped. (Which is why I'm against a constitutional convention.)

And I don't care that you don't care. How about that? :) Yeah...I get it. You'd rather the federal government not exist. I'd rather my individual rights not be brutalized by federal or state government. It's kind of like how I feel about corporations. They are bastardized state created entities that got empowered by the 14th amendment. (The amendment to guarantee rights of slaves has been used to guarantee rights of a made up life form. Imagine that?) Since corporations do exist I have zero qualms about using anti-trust law, or any other law created by the same government entity that NEVER should have created modern corporations, to reign them in. And yep. I'm sure anti-trust law has been abused. (Again.....corporations should not even exist as they do). I have yet to see any limitation put on states by the 2nd amendment that in any way bothers me. But that's just me. If you have an example than by all means share it.

Don't feel bad. A LOT of people miss this. I noticed years ago that there was something off about the ACLU defending the 1st Amendment as applicable to the states but taking a pass on the 2nd. Their excuse is "Other people defend the 2nd." But there are other groups defending the 1st as well. (And lately better than the ACLU.) But I went all the way through law school, passed the bar, and never heard of the Nunn v. Georgia case even though it was referenced in D.C. vs Heller. (Come to think of it. We didn't study the Heller case at all.) I knew about Cruikshank before going to law school. I read about in the book "Library In A Book. Gun Control." I bought that book for $1.00 at a local library sale. The best $1.00 I ever spent! It's not pro or anti gun control. It just goes over the seminal cases and explains them. (As familydog rightly pointed out, Nunn v Georgia is a state case which probably why it's not in there but considering it's referenced in D.C. v. Heller it should be. And I apologize for being snarky with him. This stuff does take a while to digest.) I need to go ahead and start my blog/vlog to cover issues like this.

I remember years ago after donating to Ron Paul, that I started getting phone calls from John Cornyn's PAC. I looked up his voting record and the next time they called I gave the young lady on the phone an earful. They quit calling after that.

Loan forgiveness is actually Biblical. And it's the basis of the bankruptcy system that Trump took advantage of more than once during his business career. Deuteronomy 15:1-2 ESV “At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release. And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release what he has lent to his neighbor. He shall not exact it of his neighbor, his brother, because the Lord's release has been proclaimed. https://www.abi.org/feed-item/examining-donald-trump%E2%80%99s-chapter-11-bankruptcies Donald Trump, the current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, has come under fire from both the media and the other candidates for his business record. Although Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy, he has reportedly filed for business bankruptcy at least four times. Trump responded to the criticism by arguing that businesses often have to file for bankruptcy and that filing for bankruptcy was a financially sound move each time he did it. In fact, during the September 16 Republican debate, Trump observed that “hundreds of companies” have done the same thing. PolitiFact, the Tampa Bay Times’ award-winning fact-checking blog, recently analyzed the claims, from both sides, about Donald Trump’s business bankruptcies in an article straightforwardly titled “Fact-checking claims about Donald Trump’s four bankruptcies.” The website found that there is validity to many of Trump’s points about business bankruptcy being in the best interests of companies. Trump has filed for business bankruptcy four times: the Trump Taj Mahal in 1991, Trump Plaza Hotel in 1992, Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts in 2004 and Trump Entertainment Resorts in 2009. Each time, the bankruptcy was a Chapter 11 filing. While Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy deal with personal bankruptcies, Chapter 11 is most often used by businesses filing for bankruptcy. Chapter 11 bankruptcy allows a financially struggling business to reorganize in order to keep going. That said, the entire SYSTEM needs to be re-examined. In the 21st century with the ability to do remote learning there is no reason why education should be as expensive as it is. That's especially true for state funded schools.

It's not an "LGBT show." Ellen Degeneris is an "LGBT show." This was a sex show. When you have someone dancing for tips, that's a sex show. Really. Until you can acknowledge that simple fact that this was a SEX show at a gay BAR there is no reason to even talk to you about anything else. This is how child trafficking starts. Kids are exposed to the idea that selling your body for money is okay. Then they are encouraged to sell their body themselves. Again, the same twisted logic you are using was used by the New York CPS to justify doing NOTHING about a parent letting her 11 year old son dance for tips at a gay bar. A child, boy or girl, on stage, at a bar DANCING FOR TIPS is doing sex work. You want to say I'm doing "dishonest lawyering" but that would be YOU! Most of the time when someone is performing on stage they don't have dollars thrown at them. I've been to many a concert, comedy show, magic show etc. The only time money is thrown on stage is when the performance is sexual. This is NOT okay:

*SIGH* The 2nd Amendment applied to the states prior to the 14th Amendment and the so called "incorporation doctrine." I explained that here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?559312-SCOTUS-strikes-down-anti-carry-NY-gun-law&p=7116466&viewfull=1#post7116466 And here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?559312-SCOTUS-strikes-down-anti-carry-NY-gun-law&p=7116402&viewfull=1#post7116402

Just because a liberal court might later make an idiotic ruling doesn't mean you have to buy into that idiotic ruling. A plain reading of the 2nd Amendment, and pre civil right persuasive court precedent, and common sense shows that it applies to the states and it has ALWAYS applied to the states. Again, the 1st Amendment was limited by the word "Congress." The word "Congress" is nowhere in the 1st Amendment. And the word "abortion" is nowhere in the constitution at all.

You do realize that the SCOTUS later referenced Nunn v Georgia in the Hiller Case right? :rolleyes: You SHOULD recognizes that because I freaking said it. Reading is fundamental. There is something in law called binding authority and something called persuasive authority. Nunn v Georgia is persuasive authority because the Georgia Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment the way people who were alive at the time it was written interpreted it. And you do realize that there is nothing in the wording of the 2nd Amendment to limit it to the federal government the way the word "Congress" limits the 1st Amendment right? Again, reading is fundamental. You should also realize that the U.S. Constitution clearly states that is is the supreme law of the land. Article VI clause 2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Again, reading is fundamental. So...go ahead and make your argument why the Georgia Supreme Court was wrong to interpret the 2nd Amendment, which says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, applied to the state even without the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine. I'll wait.

Sounds better than just giving money to every person that acquired college debt.

What I know is that solid video proof of any incident is not good enough reason to not be prosecuted or be prosecuted. If anything goes against the propaganda rhetoric it is not valid, goes missing, gets deleted or canceled, or even debunked with illogical nonsense and believers are deemed conspiracy theorists. "Just follow the science, it is irrefutable and we will not give time to anybody that says otherwise!"

The Second Amendment ALWAYS applied to the states! https://everything.explained.today/Nunn_v._Georgia/ Nunn v. Georgia explained Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) is a Georgia Supreme Court ruling that a state law ban on handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds. Background In 1837, Georgia passed a law banning the sale and carry of certain types of weapons included Bowie and other types of knives, and pistols. Hawkins H. Nunn was charged and convicted for carrying a pistol in violation of the law. He appealed the ruling, claiming the state law was a violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. He did not make a claim under the Georgia constitution because Georgia, unlike many other states, did not have a similar protection of the right to bear arms within its constitution.

This isn't a case of "easily." That said, you keep asking me questions and you haven't answered mine. Or at least I didn't see an answer. And it's not just a "transgender show." This isn't "drag queen story hour. It's a sex worker show. It's no different then a parent taking his child to a stripper show. And I also mentioned the parent letting her son be the sex show. You're okay with a parent literally letting her child do sex work? And if you are, then why stop with just twerking for tips? As the sign said "It's not going to lick itself." Political speeches, right wing or left wing, are protected by the first amendment. Sex work is not. You can't seriously consider those two things equivalent.

What else could "keep and bear" arms mean other than the right to both "keep" them in the home and "bear" them outside the home?

Call me old fashioned, but I don't think that if you want to rape your children you have the right to do that based on some misguided notion of liberty. I don't think you have the right to sell your children for other people to rape them. Extreme examples I know, but I hope you see my point. There is a HUGE difference between letting your children watch Disney cartoons and taking them to a gay bar and letting them dance for money. I also think there is a HUGE difference between letting your children watch Disney cartoons and taking them to a gay bar where they watch other people dance for money. The Disney cartoon that you're letting your kids watch (or the Playboy channel for that matter), can't turn around and offer you or your kids money to have sex with your kids. The men in the gay bar, who are already tipping underage drag queen kids, actually CAN offer you and your kids money. I think that's wrong. You're free to feel different about that. I'm curious as to why though.

Oh I think she's ignorant on the question of how to bring more oil production online. But I think she doesn't care to know. I would be like putting Jerry Farwell Jr. over the committee for Planned Parenting Funding. Cross purposes. This is what I found about this ladies background. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Granholm After graduating from Harvard Law School, Granholm clerked for Judge Damon Keith, a senior judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, from 1987 to 1988. She also worked for the Michael Dukakis 1988 presidential campaign. After working as an attorney in the Wayne County executive office from 1989 to 1991, Granholm became an assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan in 1991. She helped to prosecute drug dealers, gang members and child pornographers, sued the state and fought against credit card fraud. Of the 154 people Granholm tried, 151 were convicted. In 1995, she was appointed as Corporation Counsel for Wayne County, the youngest person to hold the position. Granholm defended the county against lawsuits, sued the state over road taxes, and fought to uphold environmental laws.