The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I'm trying to figure out what that leaves not to question.

In other words, God's word in infallible. Something gets lost in the translation.

One of the Commandments is "Thou Shall Not Steal". The interpretation is "Don't get caught."

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I like Bob, but that's phenomenal.

I like Bob as well and he's not the first nor will he be the last person I call out for this. It's terribly annoying. It's one thing to tell a person you've blocked them, I tell everyone who I block that I have done so, it's another to brag about it a number of times after the fact.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

In other words, God's word in infallible. Something gets lost in the translation.

One of the Commandments is "Thou Shall Not Steal". The interpretation is "Don't get caught."

IMO that's the story with homosexuality. Assuming Jesus represents God's word, stopping gay marriage would be about number 100 on the list of Biblical priorities...meaning that its not even on the list.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

You know what? Shut the **** up about it. Seriously. The only thing worse than people worth blocking (and unofan is not one of them) are people who endlessly preen about blocking people.

I've mentioned it a couple times. Small payback for the rubbish he's thrown at me. Get over it. It's not like I've been doing it a bunch of times, let alone endlessly, or I'd fully understand and agree with your point.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I've mentioned it a couple times. Small payback for the rubbish he's thrown at me. Get over it. It's not like I've been doing it a bunch of times, let alone endlessly, or I'd fully understand and agree with your point.

Anything to go after "knuckledraggers", I guess.

 

[unofan]

Anything to go after "knuckledraggers", I guess.

Bob's not a knuckledragger. A passive aggressive religious evangelical who lets his faith override his brain at times, sure. But he's not on the same level as the idiots who dropped 'n'-bombs on twitter last night because the President's speech interrupted football.

 

[Rover]

Bob's not a knuckledragger. A passive aggressive religious evangelical who lets his faith override his brain at times, sure. But he's not on the same level as the idiots who dropped 'n'-bombs on twitter last night because the President's speech interrupted football.

Bob's a knuckledragger.

I don't get putting people on ignore because even I'll admit occasionally you righties post something that I didn't know. Last week I think Flagg had something on there that was new to me, and I recall some righties learning from us lefties that teachers don't collect social security.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Bob's a knuckledragger.

I don't get putting people on ignore because even I'll admit occasionally you righties post something that I didn't know. Last week I think Flagg had something on there that was new to me, and I recall some righties learning from us lefties that teachers don't collect social security.

Incorrect. They collect social security. First-hand experience is my basis for rebuttal. They may not collect it right away, though, because public employees are typically allowed to petition for early retirement after they have been in the system for 30 years.

 

[unofan]

Incorrect. They collect social security. First-hand experience is my basis for rebuttal. They may not collect it right away, though, because public employees are typically allowed to petition for early retirement after they have been in the system for 30 years.

Not all of them do. Some states have grandfathered pension scemes which are in lieu of, rather than an addition to, social security.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Not all of them do. Some states have grandfathered pension scemes which are in lieu of, rather than an addition to, social security.

The Vampire State does.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Bob's a knuckledragger.

I don't get putting people on ignore because even I'll admit occasionally you righties post something that I didn't know. Last week I think Flagg had something on there that was new to me, and I recall some righties learning from us lefties that teachers don't collect social security.

Yah, those knuckles of mine are pretty calloused over. Funny thing, I wasn't a knuckledragger in many ways back 20-30 years ago when some of my views were more popular. Guess somehow other people changing their views on things caused my knuckles to start to drag?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Yah, those knuckles of mine are pretty calloused over. Funny thing, I wasn't a knuckledragger in many ways back 20-30 years ago when some of my views were more popular. Guess somehow other people changing their views on things caused my knuckles to start to drag?

No, because we do not buy into the re-education tactics of the left, as they pull, our knuckles drag along the ground as we hold onto our beliefs.

 

[Rover]

Yah, those knuckles of mine are pretty calloused over. Funny thing, I wasn't a knuckledragger in many ways back 20-30 years ago when some of my views were more popular. Guess somehow other people changing their views on things caused my knuckles to start to drag?

The 80's are over Bob. Time to let them go. . Although, if you want to post a picture of yourself during your "hair band" craze, don't let me stop you!

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The 80's are over Bob. Time to let them go. . Although, if you want to post a picture of yourself during your "hair band" craze, don't let me stop you!

What? Give up my Hungry Hungry Hippos? Never!

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The Court issues a decision on Right v Wrong. http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-overturns-right-v-wrong,27077/?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The Court issues a decision on Right v Wrong. http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-overturns-right-v-wrong,27077/?

I'll admit, that's a good one.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The Court issues a decision on Right v Wrong. http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-overturns-right-v-wrong,27077/?

Until I saw the Onion reference, I figured this was a logical next step for where our country is headed and just might be legit. After all, anymore, who should tell someone else what is right or wrong?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Hank Greenberg / STAR International's suit against the Federal government over the way it seized control of AIG during the financial crisis is going to be a very interesting case. Naturally the lamestream media is missing most of the key facts, so that what we generally are hearing about the case makes it sound totally ridiculous.

For example, there was a shareholder vote before the takeover, and the shareholders voted against being bailed out by the government. The government then proceeded to seize a nearly 80% stake in the company anyway.

Greenberg's key argument is that Fifth Amendment rights against seizure of property by government without adequate compensation were violated. Detractors point out that AIG would otherwise have gone bankrupt. However, that bankruptcy would have merely been a short-term liquidity problem and not a problem of long-term valuation. AIG's assets exceeded its liabilities once the very short-term "mark to market" problem from the depths of the crisis had passed. Had AIG gone through a bankruptcy reorganization, it would have continued in business and shareholders would still have had some value left over. The bankruptcy merely would have provided that creditors' claims be recognized in an orderly manner; after all creditors had been satisfied, residual shareholder equity would have still been there.

The US Government has already asked the courts for summary judgment and a dismissal, and have been denied. The case will proceed to trial.

Once you burrow below the superficiality and emotional judgments of reporters who know little about law and less about finance, the case has some intriguing issues: would shareholders have been better off had AIG been allowed to go bankrupt, compared to having their equity diluted four times over? and what happens if Greenberg / STAR win? what do they get?

AIG itself was not "bailed out." It was merely the vehicle by which the government bailed out other companies. One can argue that the US "had to" bail out those other companies to prevent further damage to the world financial system. Perhaps so. However, that is not the issue in the lawsuit. the issue in the lawsuit is, "is it permissible for the US government to use unconstitutional methods to address an emergency, no matter how dire said emergency seems to be at the time?"

I'll be curious to see how it all plays out.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Hank Greenberg / STAR International's suit against the Federal government over the way it seized control of AIG during the financial crisis is going to be a very interesting case. Naturally the lamestream media is missing most of the key facts, so that what we generally are hearing about the case makes it sound totally ridiculous.

For example, there was a shareholder vote before the takeover, and the shareholders voted against being bailed out by the government. The government then proceeded to seize a nearly 80% stake in the company anyway.

Greenberg's key argument is that Fifth Amendment rights against seizure of property by government without adequate compensation were violated. Detractors point out that AIG would otherwise have gone bankrupt. However, that bankruptcy would have merely been a short-term liquidity problem and not a problem of long-term valuation. AIG's assets exceeded its liabilities once the very short-term "mark to market" problem from the depths of the crisis had passed. Had AIG gone through a bankruptcy reorganization, it would have continued in business and shareholders would still have had some value left over. The bankruptcy merely would have provided that creditors' claims be recognized in an orderly manner; after all creditors had been satisfied, residual shareholder equity would have still been there.

The US Government has already asked the courts for summary judgment and a dismissal, and have been denied. The case will proceed to trial.

Once you burrow below the superficiality and emotional judgments of reporters who know little about law and less about finance, the case has some intriguing issues: would shareholders have been better off had AIG been allowed to go bankrupt, compared to having their equity diluted four times over? and what happens if Greenberg / STAR win? what do they get?

AIG itself was not "bailed out." It was merely the vehicle by which the government bailed out other companies. One can argue that the US "had to" bail out those other companies to prevent further damage to the world financial system. Perhaps so. However, that is not the issue in the lawsuit. the issue in the lawsuit is, "is it permissible for the US government to use unconstitutional methods to address an emergency, no matter how dire said emergency seems to be at the time?"

I'll be curious to see how it all plays out.

It's actually the fourth amendment that protects against illegal seizures, but I see where you're getting, especially if the shareholders voted against it.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

It's actually the fourth amendment that protects against illegal seizures, but I see where you're getting, especially if the shareholders voted against it.

I think FreshFish was referring to the 5th Amendment's takings clause. Unfortunately, we never spent much time going over temporary takings in Property class.