101

(197 replies, posted in Universal News)

Rev, you forgot an e at the end of "potatoe."

102

(92 replies, posted in General)

I knew that one too!  X(

103

(92 replies, posted in General)

It's a guy with a red bike helmet on!

104

(1 replies, posted in General)

Due to the sudden lack of content... closed!

Spam!

106

(92 replies, posted in General)

Stephen Fry

107

(92 replies, posted in General)

Grover!

108

(92 replies, posted in General)

Like real football or that "it's soccer, but you silly people everywhere except America call it football" football?

109

(22 replies, posted in Community)

Arby3 wrote:

Still counting votes!


It took Arby almost a year to count to 15.  Lemme guess... you took vote-counting school in Florida?  big_smile

110

(7 replies, posted in General)

ET and Ride to Hell disagree.  big_smile

111

(11 replies, posted in Announcements)

There was a bug that prevented people from being able to station fleets.  That's been fixed.

112

(92 replies, posted in General)

[TI] Primo wrote:

It's not Rick Astley

*sigh*

This really lets me down.
*runs around and deserts this thread*

113

(7 replies, posted in Bugs)

Should be fixed.

114

(7 replies, posted in General)

... Okay, who gave Arby too much sugar?  One candy bar and he may log in and play a round actively... four candy bars and he starts endorsing Elder Scrolls Online.

115

(92 replies, posted in General)

I dunno who he is, but I have a sneaking suspicion he's never gonna give you up!

116

(7 replies, posted in Announcements)

One more!  Enjoy the big fams!  big_smile

117

(7 replies, posted in Announcements)

And another spot!

118

(7 replies, posted in Announcements)

One spot has been added to each family in Starburst.

119

(18 replies, posted in Universal News)

I vote we drag out this deliberation of the reasoning behind our dragging out of stuff, as the dragging out of this deliberation of the reasoning behind our dragging out of stuff would really drive ICD crazy!  big_smile

120

(32 replies, posted in Politics)

izard wrote:

Most of what you are saying should and is covered
by state law.
   For political and power grab reasons the federal
courts are making a mess of things.
   But everything you mention is financially based reasons.

Taxes are federal law.
Bankruptcy's federal law
Criminal law is both state and federal.
Moreover, don't forget that state law is regulated by the US Constitution.  The 14th Amendment is what extends constitutional rights to cover state law, and the 14th amendment is the basis on which marriage was decided.  This wasn't a matter of federal law.  It was a matter of constitutional law that was specifically written to apply to state law.
 

izard wrote:

Guys are not looking for equal rights. Guys are wanting
superior rights if it wre not so they would be asking
for a change in the law and not a change in the constitution.

Okay then.  What would be considered "equal rights" under this case?  What would be considered equal?

121

(32 replies, posted in Politics)

izard wrote:

You are saying government should  and does have a right to
have a say in marriage strictly for financial gain.

Not necessarily strictly for financial gain.  A number of nonfinancial rights are defined in part based on marital status.  Who determines what happens to a person who is unable to make their own medical decisions?  Spouse gets priority.  Can the government compel a person to testify that another person confessed to a crime?  Exceptions may exist if the person being compelled to testify is the spouse of the defendant.  There has to be more I'm not thinking of, but there's definitely a number of areas of law where special rules apply for two people who are married.  They're not all financial (though a significant portion are).  If the government can't define who does or doesn't qualify for those rights via some strict method (such as classifying people as "married" or "not married" via registration), the government has no easy way to apply those rules.

122

(32 replies, posted in Politics)

Okay then... what about the associated legal rights and rules that change in marriage?  Are you saying the government has no right to define what individuals are entitled to, for example, file taxes jointly, have right to the assets of another person who dies, file bankruptcy jointly, be subject to special communication privileges in criminal law, etc.?  Nearly every area of law has special rules associated with married couples.  Doesn't that establish a state right to define who qualifies for those special rules?

123

(32 replies, posted in Politics)

Could you please explain, then, what made the Supreme Court actions with regards to Obamacare constitutionally inappropriate, and what, in your opinion, appropriate action would have entailed?

124

(32 replies, posted in Politics)

izard wrote:

At you fool
   Gay marriage  was not part of the law
and  it should not be. Government should not
have any part in any marriage.

Are you saying the government constitutionally has no place in marriage?

125

(2 replies, posted in Announcements)

Due to the limited number of remaining player slots in Starburst, one new player slots was added to each family.