Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?

tmiddles wrote: So I take it the destruction of Hitler statues in Germany is something you think is a shame?

tmiddles wrote: A statue of Einstein won't have a plaque say "World greatest husband".

tmiddles wrote: People who did more harm than good (Hitler) would generally not warrant a statue.

tmiddles wrote: Statues of historical figures aren't there to teach history they are there to say, with the voice of the community, this achievement by this person we celebrate.

tmiddles wrote: Supreme court justice Roger Brooke Taney is known for one thing: The United States Secretary of the Treasury under President Andrew Jackson.

tmiddles wrote: .. ruling that African Americans could not be considered citizens and that Congress could not prohibit slavery

tmiddles wrote: A statue of him sends a very clear message as it was meant to.

tmiddles wrote: The argument is that the South succeeded because of "States Rights" which just means Freedom to do things that the federal government was interfering with.

tmiddles wrote: Oh and IBdaMan,
The civil war was actually caused by bullets and cannon balls.

tmiddles wrote: Some bayonets here and there. Had nothing to do with any pieces of paper. You can't fight a war with bits of paper.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Decent people owned slaves. Examples are George Washington ...
What pro-slavery statues?
Slaves were not the issue.

I would agree. I said it was a step forward as humanity who's time had come.

tmiddles wrote:
Don't count west Africa as part of the "western world".

tmiddles wrote:
The leadership of the south existed in a community of trade and interaction where they were dead last in finally giving up slavery.

tmiddles wrote:
Pro-slavery statues:
"busts of Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney and a bust of Maryland's first governor and slave owner Thomas Johnson"

tmiddles wrote:
"Slaves were not THE issue" or "Slaves were not AN issue" ???

tmiddles wrote:
2nd place to the interference with interstate commerce? Not on the list at all?

tmiddles wrote:
Go ahead, go full Trump, claim it was low on the list or not an issue at all.

tmiddles wrote:
But be careful! The CONFEDERACY was one of men, and they gave speeches and said things. Their testimony is a matter of public record.

tmiddles wrote:
So I take it the destruction of Hitler statues in Germany is something you think is a shame?

tmiddles wrote:
Yes statues glorify the person for their specific achievements in most cases.

tmiddles wrote:
A statue of Einstein won't have a plaque say "World greatest husband".

tmiddles wrote:
People who did more harm than good (Hitler) would generally not warrant a statue.

tmiddles wrote:
Statues of historical figures aren't there to teach history they are there to say, with the voice of the community, this achievement by this person we celebrate.

tmiddles wrote:
So here's a list. Do you believe in the following:
Jim Crow existed
There were Jim Crow laws which deprived blacks of the right to vote
The rights of blacks in southern states were violated
The KKK and other powerful forces in southern society worked hard to keep blacks in the position of being 2nd class citizens.

tmiddles wrote:
Do you doubt all of that passion and activity didn't get a few statues built?

tmiddles wrote:
Supreme court justice Roger Brooke Taney is known for one thing: The Dred Scott Decision
ruling that African Americans could not be considered citizens and that Congress could not prohibit slavery

tmiddles wrote:
A statue of him sends a very clear message as it was meant to.

tmiddles wrote:
So again this is being dodged.

tmiddles wrote:
The argument is that the South succeeded

tmiddles wrote:
because of "States Rights" which just means Freedom to do things that the federal government was interfering with.

tmiddles wrote:
Let's get a top 3 list of things that were being interfered with that irked the states:
1._____
2._____
3._____

tmiddles wrote:
Oh and IBdaMan,
The civil war was actually caused by bullets and cannon balls.

tmiddles wrote:
Some bayonets here and there.

tmiddles wrote:
Had nothing to do with any pieces of paper.

tmiddles wrote:
You can't fight a war with bits of paper.

IBdaMann wrote:

The statue does not represent negative traits not expressed by the artist or sponsor....

1. statues exist because they are physical objects fashioned by an artist to express positive characteristics.

...[Roger Brooke Taney] Wasn't he also a Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court? Pretty impressive.

IBdaMann wrote:
...infringements on State Sovereignty, ...your success in wedging the word "slavery" in there ...because you then have to insist that the Civil War was fought over Lincoln being elected,

Into the Night wrote:

[slavery was] certainly one of the issues, but not the only one, or even the most important one.

tmiddles wrote:Not "Dread" but Dred Scott.

tmiddles wrote:And if you knew your American history you'd know that Taney judged that Dred Scott didn't have a case at all, because he wasn't a human being at all.

tmiddles wrote: You keep pretending these statues are in museums.

tmiddles wrote: Statutes are no more history than bumper stickers and T-shirts.

tmiddles wrote: Taney was scum. He is a stain on American history.

tmiddles wrote:We have the words of the confederacy itself.

[The North] have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.

tmiddles wrote: Do I need to quote the CORNERSTONE speech given by the Confedracy?

tmiddles wrote:It's not cherry picking to quote the government of the confederacy itself identifying the cornerstone of it's existence.

... a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. I said should be in museums. What a community doesn't want to display in public should be displayed in a museum.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. I said should be in museums. What a community doesn't want to display in public should be displayed in a museum.

I agree it should all be in museums.

So quite simply State Soverenty being violated by the Federal government would be based on real events.

What got violated? What southern state activities were being interfered with by the Feds?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

The statue does not represent negative traits not expressed by the artist or sponsor....

1. statues exist because they are physical objects fashioned by an artist to express positive characteristics.

...[Roger Brooke Taney] Wasn't he also a Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court? Pretty impressive.

Not "Dread" but Dred Scott.

And if you knew your American history you'd know that Taney judged that Dred Scott didn't have a case at all, because he wasn't a human being at all.

tmiddles wrote:
current or former slaves and their descendants had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

tmiddles wrote:
You keep pretending these statues are in museums.

tmiddles wrote:
Statues in parks and public places say "this person is awesome".

tmiddles wrote:
Statutes are no more history than bumper stickers and T-shirts.

tmiddles wrote:
Do you believe in bad actors in history? How could you not?

tmiddles wrote:
Taney was scum. He is a stain on American history.

tmiddles wrote:
More importantly it's easy to see why a statue of him would be wanted.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
...infringements on State Sovereignty, ...your success in wedging the word "slavery" in there ...because you then have to insist that the Civil War was fought over Lincoln being elected,

We have the words of the confederacy itself.

tmiddles wrote:
I wedged nothing in and didn't say it was just Lincolns objection. Do I need to quote the CORNERSTONE speech given by the Confedracy?

tmiddles wrote:
The states did declare their succession and give reasons shall I quote that?

tmiddles wrote:
Don't take my word for it. Politicians in the south had plenty to say and it's all written down, accurately, by them.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

[slavery was] certainly one of the issues, but not the only one, or even the most important one.

Slip your mind what was? Go ahead and make list with % of importance. Then read a southern states succession document to check your facts.

tmiddles wrote:
It's not speculation or my opinion to look at what people in history said about they did.

tmiddles wrote:
It's not cherry picking to quote the government of the confederacy itself identifying the cornerstone of it's existence.

tmiddles wrote:
Refusing to accept credible evidence is at the core of this debate.

tmiddles wrote:
The confederacy had plenty to say about why they wanted to leave the union. I quoted it.

tmiddles wrote:
You are making things up quite simply to discount the words of the confederate government (not my words).

tmiddles wrote:
I'm curious why it's important to you that this issue be massaged so much?

tmiddles wrote:
It seems very simple to me. What's the goal? Why do you care?

tmiddles wrote:
If I lived in Germany and I had children I'd be very grateful that they didn't see statues of Hitler to ask what a great man he was.

tmiddles wrote:
Not everyone deserves a statue.

tmiddles wrote:
The statues of slavery's hero's were,

tmiddles wrote:
I think, erected to oppress blacks.

tmiddles wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong about the reason.

tmiddles wrote:
But that is what they are to a lot of people.

tmiddles wrote:
And they are hero's of hate for some too.

tmiddles wrote:
We had real Nazi's show up to defend them!

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. I said should be in museums. What a community doesn't want to display in public should be displayed in a museum.

I agree it should all be in museums.

So quite simply State Soverenty being violated by the Federal government would be based on real events.

What got violated? What southern state activities were being interfered with by the Feds?

Into the Night wrote:
The failures of the Missouri Compromise are often noted.
.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The failures of the Missouri Compromise are often noted.
.

What was the Missouri Compromise? Why'd the Southern states have an issue there.

tmiddles wrote:
Question:
What if enough people raised enough money to put a 40 foot stage of Karl Marx in your town square. Any objection to that?

tmiddles wrote:
And Harvey you noted that organized hate groups are no longer a problem?

We all saw torch wielding marchers rally around a confederate statue chanting Nazi slogans.

tmiddles wrote:
I'm not alone in considering these groups to be the greatest threat to national security.

tmiddles wrote:
It's not trivial to me or just some smug way to insult the south.

tmiddles wrote:
On a side note I would say that one of the biggest problems at play in this whole issue has been the thorough enjoyment of the North in the West in humiliating the South ever since the Civil War.

tmiddles wrote:
A lot of the emotion I see I connect with a backlash to that very inappropriate degradation of another part of the country.

tmiddles wrote: Question: What if enough people raised enough money to put a 40 foot stage of Karl Marx in your town square. Any objection to that?

tmiddles wrote: We all saw torch wielding marchers rally around a confederate statue chanting Nazi slogans.

tmiddles wrote: I'm not alone in considering these groups to be the greatest threat to national security.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
What was the Missouri Compromise?

..an arbitrary line created by Congress to divide the slave States from the non-slave States.

Into the Night wrote:
We already have one [Karl Marx Satue]. He's 20 feet tall. He's located just southwest of the University district. I have no objection. Folks in that part of town wanted the statue, they can have it. Meh.

Into the Night wrote:There no Nazi's around that are in any condition to march for long.

Into the Night wrote:
People in Northern States still tend to be some of the most racist in the nation. They were during the War of Secession, and they still are. Folks in the South do not like the KKK any better than you do. They are violent thugs that think they are representing 'the South'.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: ...40 foot statue of Karl Marx in your town square. Any objection to that?

I don't have any objection to the concept,

tmiddles wrote:
You guys wouldn't acknowledge that "Blood and Soil" is a Nazi slogan?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
What was the Missouri Compromise?

..an arbitrary line created by Congress to divide the slave States from the non-slave States.

Yet you insist slavery wasn't the primary issue?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
We already have one [Karl Marx Satue]. He's 20 feet tall. He's located just southwest of the University district. I have no objection. Folks in that part of town wanted the statue, they can have it. Meh.

OK fair enough. That is at least consistent with the belief in free expression.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:There no Nazi's around that are in any condition to march for long.

You do know that people do identify themselves as Nazi's today in the US?

tmiddles wrote:
Also I know you've heard of 911.

tmiddles wrote:
What was the 2nd worst terrorist attack in the US?911. The worst attack was Pearl Harbor.

tmiddles wrote:
Why aren't people still worried about that?

No need. Terrorists understand that any twit that tries to take over a plane will be killed by a rampaging mob. Passengers now know that hijackings more than just a trip to Cuba. They are a life and death threat.

tmiddles wrote:
Never understood how quickly that was swept aside.

It wasn't. We are still living with the consequences of it today, such as the TSA, extra snoopiness from the government, and a general paranoid attitude by the government and many citizens.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
People in Northern States still tend to be some of the most racist in the nation. They were during the War of Secession, and they still are. Folks in the South do not like the KKK any better than you do. They are violent thugs that think they are representing 'the South'.

A lot less lynching in the North though.

That happened everywhere, dude. Much of it occurred up the Mississippi valley as far as Indiana, and in New York and New England areas, as well.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote: ...40 foot statue of Karl Marx in your town square. Any objection to that?

I don't have any objection to the concept,

Again fair enough.

tmiddles wrote:
Oklahoma City bombing is still a big deal to me.

tmiddles wrote:
Some scary people in our country and we should think about how to deal with it.

tmiddles wrote:
I don't believe in censorship but also not in turning a blind eye.

tmiddles wrote:Yet you insist slavery wasn't the primary issue?

tmiddles wrote: You do know that people do identify themselves as Nazi's today in the US?

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: You do know that people do identify themselves as Nazi's today in the US?

I do not know that. I do not know of any and I don't live under a rock.

.

tmiddles wrote: The crowd (of very fine people as Trump identified them) were chanting, on camera "Jew will not replace us".

tmiddles wrote:The North repeatedly interfered with the South's soverenty primarily in the area of slavery. Was that an arbitrary choice? Doesn't matter. It had been outlawed everywhere else in the "western world" so the pressure was building.

tmiddles wrote: Governments make laws and restrictions.

tmiddles wrote: You can't compare it to burglary and be accurate.

tmiddles wrote:The North attacked the south because they seceded.

tmiddles wrote: To say the the Civil War was about slavery is the most accurate thing you can say.

tmiddles wrote: It's not easy to get upset about things that aren't important to you. Slavery was important to the South.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: The crowd (of very fine people as Trump identified them) were chanting, on camera "Jew will not replace us".

Do you have the video of that? I'll denounce it right here and now.

IBdaMann wrote:
If the United States would have just waited, slavery would have ended on its own in the southern states,

tmiddles wrote:Just not a moment for the president to look at that group and say there were some fine people in the bunch.

tmiddles wrote:I think it's fair to say that's simply a camera pointed at a demonstration.

tmiddles wrote: So do you think Martin Luther King should have waited? He was asked by every president to just slow down, give things time.

IBdaMann wrote:appear to be doing ...

tmiddles wrote: OK let's make this more focused and clear. David Duke. Long track record, plenty to say, loves Trump.

tmiddles wrote: He was there and pretty much represents everything we're talking about.

tmiddles wrote:Trump is very good at one thing: Not holding back on what he views as an enemy and a threat.

tmiddles wrote: Many of us who really really hate Trump (and I do!) were actually shocked that he didn't put David Duke on that list.

tmiddles wrote:David Duke endorsed him and Trump pretended he didn't know ho he was (a lie) and he was there at the Charlottesville but Trump refused to denounce him.

tmiddles wrote:Trump denounces people all day long!

tmiddles wrote:Many of us who really really hate Trump (and I do!) ...

IBdaMann wrote:
What has Trump ever done to you? ... America being great again?... the lowest unemployment rate in history across the board?...you absolutely refuse to support America

tmiddles wrote:It is un-American to say a political opponent of a politician is therefor against the country, you find that in every totalitarian state.

tmiddles wrote: Giving any president of two yeas credit for the current economy is BS.

tmiddles wrote: So why hate the man? Well I never really liked him pre-politics because he's always been a vulgar blow hard.

tmiddles wrote: What I hate most is that he's both a liar and he works hard to discredit the truth.

tmiddles wrote: But let's do one on point to work in the early post: David Duke.

tmiddles wrote: Most of us have known for decades who David Duke is, the most famous racist in America because he got so dangerously close to high office.

tmiddles wrote: When David Duke endorsed Trump he was later asked about it in an interview,

tmiddles wrote: Almost as big and issue: He is a leader of hate. I still cannot believe the banning Muslims from the country was a real political ad.

tmiddles wrote: Mexicans are rapists and immigrants are the problem.

tmiddles wrote: Unbelievably low on the list, only because he's got SO much bad stuff, is that he is a truly stupid man.

tmiddles wrote:He thinks NATO collects dues,

tmiddles wrote: that clean coal get's washed off lump by lump,

tmiddles wrote: ... that people should be armed at bars (even the wild west wouldn't do that),

tmiddles wrote: If you want to blame the left for hating Trump causing the division go ahead.

tmiddles wrote: He's the leader and I see a country in the worst shape it's been in since long before Nixon.

tmiddles wrote: And he has no class. I really like having a classy leader. From the eloquence to the civilized behavior I miss that. From Reagan to Obama we've had some of the best. Trump is such an incredible embarrassment to the country.

IBdaMann wrote:
It is absolutely un-American to seek the failure of the United States

IBdaMann wrote:
Giving credit to the President for fulfilling campaign promises is an obligation.

IBdaMann wrote:
Do you usually HATE people you don't know?

IBdaMann wrote:
At this point you are trying to give me a snowjob.

IBdaMann wrote:
You don't have any reason for HATING Trump ... you just do.

IBdaMann wrote: you see how obvious it is that you are talking about David Duke

IBdaMann wrote:
He never got close to anything.

IBdaMann wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLukCE3vwwA

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: Mexicans are rapists and immigrants are the problem.

IBdaMann wrote:
Let's see, a self-made billionaire who gets himself elected President of the United States ... is truly stupid?

IBdaMann wrote:
Trump is fully aware that NATO members don't pay their share.

IBdaMann wrote:
People were armed in bars in the "wild west" because yes, people should not be required to be defenseless in bars.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: He's the leader and I see a country in the worst shape it's been in since long before Nixon.

In what way?

IBdaMann wrote: Maybe you were told to think that.

tmiddles wrote: Did you seek to have Obama replaced?

tmiddles wrote: Are you saying I have an obligation to pay homage to Trump?

tmiddles wrote: This is my country too and I care about my own welfare and everyone else's so of course I care about the leadership we have.

tmiddles wrote: No it's a blizzard because he's such a prolific liar.

tmiddles wrote: Are you saying Trump hasn't lied a tremendous amount?

tmiddles wrote: No one has trampled what this country stands for more.

tmiddles wrote: Also keep in mind Trump actively goads and torments his enemies.

tmiddles wrote: Each day he tries to fuel our anger towards him because he knows his followers enjoy the cruelty.

tmiddles wrote: He doesn't care that he's stoking a fire that is burning the country.

tmiddles wrote: I was pointing out that Trump was a liar and that he's done more than any president since the 50's to give a wink and a nod to white power.

tmiddles wrote: Wow learn your history. He got 55% of the white vote in the race for Governor of Louisiana. He was a congressman. I guess you don't consider that anything.

tmiddles wrote: You've seen it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jaz1J0s-cL4

tmiddles wrote: You do know how NATO works right? Because TRUMP does not.

tmiddles wrote: So when there was the mass shooting in Florida by a US citizen with legally purchase fire arms and Trump said it would have been a beautiful thing if people in the bar had been armed you think that was an intelligent thing to say?

tmiddles wrote: You do know why they have bouncers padding people down for knives right?

tmiddles wrote:Every day the mutual hatred in the country builds as we move toward real conflict.

tmiddles wrote: Saying you that someone doesn't have their own ideas in a debate is basically admitting you have no counter.

IBdaMann wrote:I supported the United States and its President with complete fidelity.

IBdaMann wrote:
Well, now I'm saying that you apparently can't read English. How do you translate "give credit to" into "pay homage to"?

IBdaMann wrote:
Giving credit to the President for fulfilling campaign promises is an obligation.

IBdaMann wrote:
... and you can't cite a single specific lie.

IBdaMann wrote:
For what does this country stand? How did Trump trample it?

IBdaMann wrote:
Keep in mind that Trump torments no one;

IBdaMann wrote:
You haven't "pointed out" anything.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: 55% of the white vote

Yes, you and I were talking about different things.

IBdaMann wrote:
Answer these questions:
1) Are you claiming that no Mexican criminals have come to the US?
2) Are you claiming that there aren't any Mexican rapists that have come to the US?
3) Are you claiming that NONE of the Mexicans that come to the US are good people?
Please, be honest and answer these.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: You do know how NATO works right? Because TRUMP does not.

It seems very clear to me that Trump understands completely how NATO works

IBdaMann wrote:
Let's answer your question, shall we?

IBdaMann wrote:
How many of the deaths in Florida did the bouncers prevent?

IBdaMann wrote:
you cannot explain your absurd positions
.

tmiddles wrote:
For one we are a democracy

tmiddles wrote:
where the citizens vote for representatives.

tmiddles wrote:
It's critical that that system work and not be corrupt of unreliable.

Into the Night wrote:
The system works and is reliable.

tmiddles wrote:
Go ahead. Should they allow guns in bars?

tmiddles wrote:
Should we get that law passed now if we can?

tmiddles wrote:
How about in sports stadiums?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The system works and is reliable.

I think so too. Would you agree that public confidence in the system is important?

Into the Night wrote:
That's up to the bar owner.
No. That's up to the bar owner.
That's up to who's leasing the stadium.

Into the Night wrote:
No one can hack it. It's paper ballots.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
That's up to the bar owner.
No. That's up to the bar owner.
That's up to who's leasing the stadium.

And if it was your bar or stadium?

tmiddles wrote:
I'm asking what you think is wise?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No one can hack it. It's paper ballots.

I'm glad you have confidence. So do I. But what if the public thought "what's the point the elections are all rigged and fraudulent". Wouldn't that be as bad as if they were?

tmiddles wrote:
Some people don't care about making false statements about election fraud:
illegal voters claimed

We really are on topic with this thread because we're talking about "Can you know anything" in the practical sense and is public confidence in knowledge important.

Into the Night wrote:
I don't own a bar or a stadium.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I don't own a bar or a stadium.

No fun ITN. I guess you're so good a dodging you're not worried about flying bullets : )

So you're an anarchist who doesn't believe in any government regulations at all? It's all up to us individually?

I want an RPG should I be allowed to have one?

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I don't own a bar or a stadium.

No fun ITN. I guess you're so good a dodging you're not worried about flying bullets : )

So you're an anarchist who doesn't believe in any government regulations at all? It's all up to us individually?

I want an RPG should I be allowed to have one?

I am not an anarchist. I support the Constitution of the United States.

If you want a role playing game, you can have one. If you want a rocket propelled grenade you can have one.

I don't have to worry about flying bullets.

tmiddles wrote:So when should the government exercise authority?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I don't own a bar or a stadium.

No fun ITN. I guess you're so good a dodging you're not worried about flying bullets : )

So you're an anarchist who doesn't believe in any government regulations at all? It's all up to us individually?

I want an RPG should I be allowed to have one?

I am not an anarchist. I support the Constitution of the United States.

If you want a role playing game, you can have one. If you want a rocket propelled grenade you can have one.

I don't have to worry about flying bullets.

OK that is consistent I respect that.

So when should the government exercise authority?

Into the Night wrote:
Constitutions declare and define a government.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:So when should the government exercise authority?

Questions strictly of interstate commerce and of foreign matters (including military missions).

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Constitutions declare and define a government.

So as long as it's constitutional you're OK with it?

tmiddles wrote:
And of course the court determines what is constitutional so you'd accept their interpretation over your own?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:So when should the government exercise authority?

Questions strictly of interstate commerce and of foreign matters (including military missions).

So if someone infringes my patent and we live in the same state? I want to sue someone who blew up my building? I'm a victim of crime?

tmiddles wrote:
My farm is down river from a neighbor who's polluting the water and killing my sheep?