Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-20-2016, 08:19 PM
 
2,464 posts, read 1,287,180 times
Reputation: 668

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
That's your problem. You take this all as a joke. Tearing this country down is no joke.
When commenting on the OP's posts, it is best to use the term "we" instead of "you" or he thinks it is personal rather than just you responding to a post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-20-2016, 10:46 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,634,918 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliftonpdx View Post
When commenting on the OP's posts, it is best to use the term "we" instead of "you" or he thinks it is personal rather than just you responding to a post.

Thank you!


Think before typing, or it gets very confrontational and not productive to the discussion.
Putting minds together that may not always agree, can be done in a rational and reasonable manor.

Once it gets personal, and questioning the messenger personally, the discussion is over and time to punch each other in the face. That does no one any good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2016, 08:37 AM
 
17,273 posts, read 9,562,968 times
Reputation: 16468
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Thank you!


Think before typing, or it gets very confrontational and not productive to the discussion.
Putting minds together that may not always agree, can be done in a rational and reasonable manor.

Once it gets personal, and questioning the messenger personally, the discussion is over and time to punch each other in the face. That does no one any good.
If someone is responding directly to you regarding your posts, using "you" is appropriate. Try not to be overly sensitive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2016, 09:10 AM
 
3,298 posts, read 2,474,646 times
Reputation: 5517
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
I knew it wasn't right, but spell checker didn't provide that option. I went with it, knowing someone would not be able to resist the correction... I had it spelled decent and that I knew wasn't right.
Yet you didn't care and spelled it wrong anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2016, 09:36 AM
 
11,186 posts, read 6,508,677 times
Reputation: 4622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliftonpdx View Post
Oh, well in that case, my opinion disagrees with your opinion, but then again my opinion is in line with the Constitution.
Several constitutional provisions call for more than a majority, including overriding a veto, approving a treaty, proposing constitutional amendments, and trying impeachments. The first Supreme Court had 6 Justices, so it obviously took a 2/3 majority to avoid a tie. Right now it takes 3/4 to avoid a tie. Though 9-0 is a bad idea, there's nothing anti-constitutional in requiring a 9-0, 8-1, 7-2, or 6-3 vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2016, 09:42 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,634,918 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scratch33 View Post
Yet you didn't care and spelled it wrong anyway.
I knew there would be someone soon to correct it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2016, 09:44 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,634,918 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
Though 9-0 is a bad idea

Keeping government in check, from doing unconstitutional things, is a bad idea.

This recent ruling would have been unconstitutional, instead of constitutional.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ecb_story.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2016, 12:08 PM
 
2,464 posts, read 1,287,180 times
Reputation: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Keeping government in check, from doing unconstitutional things, is a bad idea.

This recent ruling would have been unconstitutional, instead of constitutional.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ecb_story.html
All or nothing votes are a bad idea, they don't keep government in check, they just bring everything to a crippling stop and essentially end government. I know, I know, you would love the end of government, but a civilized world would also fail with all or nothing voting.

This country would have never been founded if it relied on all or nothing votes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2016, 12:16 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,634,918 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliftonpdx View Post
All or nothing votes are a bad idea, they don't keep government in check, they just bring everything to a crippling stop and essentially end government. I know, I know, you would love the end of government, but a civilized world would also fail with all or nothing voting.

This country would have never been founded if it relied on all or nothing votes.

That is the point. Stopping government grabbing liberties. as they did in the link above.
If one judge dissent, that is doubt and should not be law to restrict liberties.

Liberty, not governments ability at will to take it based upon political lines.
One judge with integrity, or the enlightenment to see the liberty it takes and stands up for the people. Would keep an injustice from happening, against the peoples liberties.

The people can handle it way better than government intervention and the taxes it takes to pay for the intervention into and limiting liberties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2016, 01:17 PM
 
2,464 posts, read 1,287,180 times
Reputation: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
That is the point. Stopping government grabbing liberties. as they did in the link above.
If one judge dissent, that is doubt and should not be law to restrict liberties.

Liberty, not governments ability at will to take it based upon political lines.
One judge with integrity, or the enlightenment to see the liberty it takes and stands up for the people. Would keep an injustice from happening, against the peoples liberties.

The people can handle it way better than government intervention and the taxes it takes to pay for the intervention into and limiting liberties.
I don't think you understand how our courts system works. Having one judge against the rest doesn't mean that one judge is right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:58 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top