626

(14 replies, posted in Politics)

Sooo... nature wants us to be dumb and reproduce without wanting to reproduce?  big_smile

627

(19 replies, posted in Politics)

That would come in handy against the zombies too!  big_smile

628

(19 replies, posted in Politics)

ooookay, then...

*backs away slowly and avoids eye contact*

629

(19 replies, posted in Politics)

So... who's honest?  tongue

630

(14 replies, posted in Politics)

You're being paid as their promoter, aren't you?

631

(11 replies, posted in Roleplay)

Closed-No thread bumping

632

(82 replies, posted in Politics)

Okay, this has gone far beyond what would constitute as an actual issue-based debate.  Closed.  Both Flint and Kemp: Play... nice.  Last time I'm saying this, because frankly, I'd much rather spend my time doing things that matter than reading crap like this and trying to resolve your bickering.  No, I don't give a crap about any excuse or pointing the finger at someone else.  I gave both of you plenty of time to walk away, but 75+ posts in, that sure as hell wasn't happening.  Unless a mod yells at me for this one, it's clear that you're both at fault, because even if the other party was also at fault, it gives you no right to respond with personal attacks when you could just as easily walk away from that conversation.

That being said... closed.

633

(82 replies, posted in Politics)

> Mister Spock wrote:

> The law should have been amended to deal with his actions and anything similar that might happen in the future.

Good men can choose what's best for the nation in extraordinary circumstances, so long as they're held accountable afterwards. Obviously nobody today thinks the Louisiana Purchase had negative results for the nation.

That was an extraordinary circumstance. The everyday ignoring of the law today is as ordinary as anything. Jefferson was acting under extraordinary circumstances. The legislature should have made it legal via a treaty or some such legality, or otherwise approved/rejected his executive decision. In the absence of Congress's authority making it clearly legal/illegal, we have the mess of illegality discussed here.

And there are far less "good men" in politics today than at this nation's founding. I think we need to err far more on the side of the law today than ever before, especially when there's no extraordinary circumstances at all.





No more questions.

*goes back to whatever he was doing*

634

(82 replies, posted in Politics)

A little less than legal?  Explain how that's different from "illegal."  Remember, we aren't talking about something where there's a debatable argument about Constitutionality (hell, the Bank of the United States, the institution upon which the constitutional debate over the Federal Reserve is heavily rooted, actually had constitutional arguments defending it, even if rooted in a broad interpretation of the "necessary and proper" clause... the Louisiana Purchase had nothing... Jefferson didn't even try to defend it Constitutionally, but instead said "screw it."  One had doubts as to the constitutionality of their actions.  The other had absolutely no legal support for their stance, then did it anyway.

So yes, when is it alright to throw out the Constitution?  Just when your guy does it?

635

(82 replies, posted in Politics)

Jefferson was never exactly the type that unabashedly adhered to the Constitution anyway.  Remember, during the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson initially asked Congress for a Constitutional Amendment to grant the power to buy land (no, there is no power to do that), but when Napolean informed him that the "massive tract of land for pennies on the dollar" deal was a limited time offer, he threw the Constitution out the window and bought the property anyway.  Not saying it was wrong by any means.  But Jefferson, one of our founding fathers, had no problem outright ignoring the Constitution when there was a choice between adherence to the Constitution and getting a strong national benefit.  Translation: If the US always strictly adhered to the US Constitution, The Yell would probably be a Spanish citizen.

636

(34 replies, posted in Politics)

Link, maybe?

637

(10 replies, posted in Politics)

I stopped at the first paragraph.  Worst way to begin a politics thread... ever!

638

(9 replies, posted in Ideas)

CFs only for VIPs!

639

(9 replies, posted in Ideas)

So... there's no advantages... except for the advantages that are there.  big_smile

640

(82 replies, posted in Politics)

I don't get what TheYell just said, but w/e, it's from MLK... *shrugs*

641

(82 replies, posted in Politics)

*writes it in the diary under his pillow*

642

(14 replies, posted in Questions)

Try stationing fleets, then say that again.  smile

643

(82 replies, posted in Politics)

> Einstein wrote:

> The communist of 1910 couldn't point to a single real-world instance of his utopia;


That.  Might not be a good example... but it's there.

644

(97 replies, posted in Roleplay)

Massachusetts coffee!

645

(97 replies, posted in Roleplay)

Not to mention, the tea is 9 months old!

646

(14 replies, posted in Ideas)

I've been the victim of fear of the op before (i.e., being given the bank and told I need to refresh my web browser constantly for 5 hours to watch for Destroy Iron so I can pass the bank to someone else, all the while I was supposed to be studying for a test the next day).

647

(82 replies, posted in Politics)

You're REALLY old!

648

(14 replies, posted in Ideas)

Is it possible to... reword the success message, then?  Obviously this shows that there's some confusion as a result of the message, and that confusion causes people to falsely believe the op is worthless.  Sounds like something worth correcting, and which could be corrected with a simple rephrasing.

649

(97 replies, posted in Roleplay)

Do you REALLY want tea that's been sitting out since April?  I mean... it's not wine.  It doesn't get better with age.

650

(97 replies, posted in Roleplay)

It definitely wasn't for your tea-serving skills.