11,660 Forum Posts by "MortifiedPenguins"
At 11/12/08 04:06 PM, Tancrisism wrote:At 11/12/08 03:06 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:
And repealing the presidential pardon would screw it up?
The simple nature of removing it, probally not. But knowing how much all Congress's want to fix things, I wouldn't trust this Congress to simply do that.
The pardon is broke, the Constitution isn't.
You deem it as broke, I don't.
Who's more right? Who's more wrong?
At 11/12/08 02:43 PM, SouthAsian wrote:At 11/11/08 10:12 PM, JoS wrote:
What were those Muslim atrocities that were on par or greater to what the European christians did such as slaughtering 3,000 muslim men, women, and children when they captured a town or when they actually cannabalised on the Muslim "heathens"?
People seem to forgot that when these same cities fell back into Moslem hands, the citizens weren't always simply let go. Beyond the few occasions of this, such as the Fall of Jerusalem, the Moslems did the same thing the Crusaders did.
The Fall of Tripoli for example, or Acre, or Antioch or nearly ever Crusader city with the Holy Land.
The wars between the Saracens and the Crusaders was similar on both sides,both sides commited attrocities on each other and themselves as well as the Jews. The only few honorable people to come out of the Crusades were Richard and Saladin.
It's a tool in our system of checks and balances in our Federal Government. A presidential pardon is the check on the Judicial System, much like how the Judicial System has checks on the Legislative.
I'm one of those that runs under the ideas of if it isn't broke, don't fix it. The Consitution is fine the way it is, there's no reason for us to screw it up.
At 11/11/08 05:46 PM, stafffighter wrote:At 11/11/08 05:29 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:At 11/11/08 05:25 PM, stafffighter wrote:At 11/11/08 02:56 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:
So you were already on fire so you thought "release the bees." Yeah, that was smart.
If you were already going to die from the fire, then why not?
At 11/11/08 05:25 PM, stafffighter wrote:At 11/11/08 02:56 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:
You expected people ona board to have senses of humor?
I was screwed anyways, so I may as well take a shot with it.
At 11/11/08 03:09 PM, Malachy wrote:At 11/11/08 02:56 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:
was this like a typical hearing or did you do something wrong?
they were just mad because you were on to them
I threw a party in my room and it got busted up by some RA's due to some people in the room that shouldn't have been in the room together.
So, I had to go through the whole hearing problem. And since it involves alchohol, beyond having my parents notified (which will really screw me over) I have to go talk to someone about alchohol use, the body and stuff like that. Probley won't happen, but I'm expecting that they bring out some alchohol dependency test as well.
All in all normal college stuff.
Yeah, apparently the Housing Judiciary Board doesn't like it when you make Animal House jokes at your hearing. I was placed on Academic Probation and I made the crack of "double secret probation".
Not fans of John Buleshi I guess.
At 11/7/08 11:26 AM, Malachy wrote:
also. why do we even get veterens day off from school...I mean, I understand the holiday but my college just figures " fuck it" and takes ONE day out of the week off...half of my professors didn't even know until some students said something. We don't even get say Monday off ot make it a 4 day weekend or anything. I'm not complaining about the day off from classes...but it seems a bit odd.
Ditto for me, we get that Tuesday off but still have classes on that Monday.
So, I've decided to go up to Boston for the weekend and just skip classes and make it a monday. I'm fine for it, none of my teachers take attendance and two of the teachers just teach straight from the syllabus so thats easy enough to catch up to.
The third class, well I really don't need so ehh.
If it makes you feel any better at all Cuppa Lettuce Nog, this may be the death toll to the Neo Conservative Movement within the Republican party.
While you will still have your social conservatives, I do not believe, that after this campaign in particular, will you have any strong leadership towards that faction.
Right now the Republican party is split in it's ideals between a bunch of groups. You have Ron Paul's more isolationist, liberterian classical liberal view, Mitt Romney's more traditional business orientated Republican view (which I support in my own right) and the remnants of of the social conservatives and neo cons which I feel will collapse or intergrate within something extreme.
My only optimism is that we have a more traditional Republican party show back up. Not a Reagan and Bush Republican party, but a Eisenhower and Roosevelt party. Back to the concerns of Business.
At 11/6/08 02:55 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:
Marriage is a thing that religious people do.
And non religious people as well, where are you going with this?
Saying one person can't be married to another sort of person, is saying that you can't have a religion that marries one man to another man. That is dictating religion. That is making a law in reference to religion.
That is unconstitutional.
I don't see how you guys are missing this fundamental issue, let alone everyone else.
Because thats not how that works, which would probally be the reason why it's States have been succesfulling banning this.
Marraige outside of a church, is for all intents and purposes, a government driven business. Tax laws, inheritance and all of the other fine financial reasons is probally the most obvious reason for the existance of marraige interacting with government, for financial neccessisty.
And since marraige isn't a right confirmed to us by the Bill of Rights and since it isn't given to the Federal Government, it's largely a state issue for them to decide what they want to do with this.
And they made thier choices. Is it unfair? of course. Is it illegal? not at all.
I for one would be a fan of making all secular marraiges into civil unions, thus removing this position from politics entirely.
At 11/6/08 06:40 PM, fli wrote:At 11/6/08 04:30 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:
That's not true.
Obama won the popular vote too, so he still WOULD be president even if we abolished the electorial college.
We don't base an entire election process on one individual election, nor would I. I'm not denying that he didn't win the popular vote, because he did. Likewise with the electoral vote because he was able to get a more spread vote across the American states and thus, win the election.
Clinton in 1992 only won 42% or 43% of the popular vote, but he won the election because of his strength across several electoral states and not just in a few high densisty positions.
No, I don't think that's true.
If we look per person, my individual vote is still less than a person than the guy up in Oregon. And that's because CA is a bigger state with a bigger population, and Oreagon is a smaller state with a smaller population.
Which is how there electoral votes are decided, of course.
So, it equalizes us. CA will still have a bigger number, but the inviduals at the other side has greater individual voting power.
I understand where your going(sort of) but how does this factor in. I mean people in Alaska will probally have an even greater voting power, but they'll still be stunted on electoral votes due to a smaller population, or maybe there is something I'm missing here from you.
At 11/6/08 04:56 PM, aninjaman wrote:At 11/6/08 04:30 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:
So? The current system leaves states with high populations completey ignored while the whole election is around Iowa corn farmers. Candidates make it so their polocies fit the needs of small swing demographics.
First off, the Iowa example that you use is evident of the Iowa caucaus, which is for the primaries.
And no, they don't ignore states with higher populations since states with higher populations have high electoral votes. Thats why the candidates tried so hard in Pennslyvania, Ohio, Michigan and Florida.
And if we went according to this plan this would, in essence, entirely disenfranchise millions of Americans and basically mean that only Democrats would be in Washington for the forseable future.
My meaning is, that this would make the majority of states pointless to campaign in because there population isn't high enough for them to actually matter in comparison to the more population intense areas of the country.
I think the Electoral college is the best way to do it, it balances the demands of the majority of the nation against the power that a state should have and the residents in that state. While more preference is given to areas of high population which means more electoral votes (Florida, Michigan, California, New york), there is also strength in the other states with less population (Wyoming, Colarado, Alaska).
It's a perfect balance.
At 11/6/08 03:38 PM, ThePretenders wrote: Yes, and while we at it let's legalise whale hunting. I want to eat a whale burger.
You can just say it's for scientific purposes.
At 11/5/08 12:27 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:At 11/5/08 04:21 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
I dunno, Bush supporters have proven that someone can make a shit load of mistakes but still have at least some people defend them. :)
True, but if it means that I never have to listen to those horrible soundbites ever again I will be very very happy.
At 11/5/08 05:55 AM, Der-Lowe wrote: Daymn! Did You Hear Dat Speach?!?!?
So I can't get that.
What does every Facebook update about this speech us language like that
At 11/5/08 03:53 AM, Imperator wrote:At 11/4/08 06:02 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
At 11/4/08 09:34 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: To be fair, waiting an hour was so not worth the effort to actually voteAbsentee ballot FTW. Chalk up another one for Ron Paul!
Thats true, completely forgot about that one
At 11/4/08 09:40 PM, Malachy wrote:At 11/4/08 09:34 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:
proceed straight to General. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars.
also, if you are in line when polls close, they will still let you vote.
I was in the line before they closed, no worries there.
As in, I live in Massachusetts and vote Republican.
So, once again nothing new was going to happen here.
At 11/4/08 06:36 PM, fli wrote:
*sigh*
I need a job.
Or a better author.
I like The Road a lot. It was even better then No Country for Old Man. Cormac Macarthy is a good author, kinda like a Hemmingway, very short and to the point words and can be at times for non descript.
To be fair, waiting an hour was so not worth the effort to actually vote
At 11/3/08 02:53 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: My heart is full of hate.
That is all.
And darkness is in your soul.
And at the end of the day, when the light fades.
You wonder, is this life or just a play
At 10/31/08 05:11 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I am obviously the only person here who lives in the woods !
No, I did this documentary once about this witch that lived in the woods.
She apparently cut of pieces of their body first, like ears and whatnot and kept them in the corner.
I was so startled.
At 10/29/08 06:05 AM, ThePretenders wrote:At 10/28/08 10:56 PM, Grammer wrote:At 10/28/08 04:19 AM, ThePretenders wrote:
Thanks... *sniffs*
I'm actually not. I want to see you spiral into a destructive habit that will make you end up at rock bottom and get you onto A&E's Intervention where I can appear and talk about your destructive habit.
At 10/27/08 06:06 AM, jimmick wrote:
I'm not some super high tech political analyst, I'm just a scummy little 15 year old with no grasp of economics, so I'm going to stick to the things I get.
I think this is the best statement that you made.
You don't pay taxes, you have no money in the government.
Even if you did have a paper route, you don't make enough to pay taxes.
You can't vote, your opinion is almost pointless, your use of nouns (like terrorist) is completely seperated from thier implied meaning (like the definition of terrorist)
So please, as your original statement implies, stick to things you have and talk about Dragonball Z or whatever you children play with now.
At 10/26/08 01:47 AM, fli wrote:At 10/26/08 12:19 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:At 10/25/08 09:40 PM, Proteas wrote:
Bar-ba---WHAT?
You goddamn PEON!!!
What, it's the Beard Buster?
The only shaving I will truley support.
At 10/25/08 09:40 PM, Proteas wrote:
I went to the local health food store today, and got a bar of Dr. Bronner's hemp oil soap with rose extract to use for lather when I shave.
Why not just just get a can of Barbasol?
At 10/23/08 09:13 PM, SevenSeize wrote:
Skunky, MP, where are you??????????????????????????????
Getting busted for having a party in my Dorm, yeah.
But it is coming out next week, and I might just be able to get it with my limited funds.
At 10/22/08 06:41 PM, Ravariel wrote:At 10/22/08 05:43 PM, SevenSeize wrote:At 10/22/08 05:41 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:
You should try to drive around Ann Arbor on Game Day. My second day as a Driver for a local sub shop was a football Saturday... took me 45 minutes to drive from the corner of Packard and Hill to the corner of Packard and Stadium. Mapquest that to see how not far that is.
This happens 5-6 times every season... ugh.
Well, because unlike the rest of Michigan.
Your good at something there, preferiably football.
And Protupunk, thank god for Iggy Pop
At 10/21/08 02:05 PM, ThePretenders wrote:At 10/21/08 07:11 AM, Idiot-Finder wrote: I have a question, why didn't users such as bcdemon and other post in this thread?I don't know really but it would be good if more people post on here.
Yes quite.
Though I would like to see a few more posters from the past.
Including JHMX, one would think that Prague would have internet capabilities.
