CNS News, Obama Administration Continues Spending under Unconstitutional HC law. - Polidicks

I miss Lankist because he would argue with me and I couldn't destroy the things he said in 30 seconds like I can with glaber In fact, Lankist was usually right and if he was arguing with me I was WRONG

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28022378]I miss Lankist because he would argue with me and I couldn't destroy the things he said in 30 seconds like I can with glaber In fact, Lankist was usually right and if he was arguing with me I was WRONG[/QUOTE] his adventure comics became like 100x more elaborate it's like, without all the distractions of intellectual debate he can focus on his art

Why was Lankist not unbanned again? I feel he'd be more effective without having to have some one pass along his messages. Now let's think for a moment. Up until now, things were going swell for Obamacare. The only opposition was the Tea Party Movement, Conservative Talk Shows, Fox News, Doctors (Both sides had them), and some politicians. But after passage, Democrats got voted out, The House fell under control of Republicans, States sued with 10 cases thrown out, 2 declaring the law constitutional, one just declaring the mandate to buy health insurance unconstitutional, and and one declaring the whole thing unconstitutional and VOID. (of course that last part means nothing right?) Now according to Lankist: When the government commits a crime, it keeps committing that crime until it gets a trial. So if this is true, this should mean that by the time they do get a trial, and possibly get convicted, the punishment would be worse? I would think that the Government wouldn't want a worse punishment should other judges and the Supreme Court rule the law unconstitutional.

[QUOTE=Glaber;28022393]Why was Lankist not unbanned again? I feel he'd be more effective without having to have some one pass along his messages. Now let's think for a moment. Up until now, things were going swell for Obamacare. The only opposition was the Tea Party Movement, Conservative Talk Shows, Fox News, Doctors (Both sides had them), and some politicians. But after passage, Democrats got voted out, The House fell under control of Republicans, States sued with 10 cases thrown out, 2 declaring the law constitutional, one just declaring the mandate to buy health insurance unconstitutional, and and one declaring the whole thing unconstitutional and VOID. (of course that last part means nothing right?) Now according to Lankist: When the government commits a crime, it keeps committing that crime until it gets a trial. So if this is true, this should mean that by the time they do get a trial, and possibly get convicted, the punishment would be worse? I would think that the Government wouldn't want a worse punishment should other judges and the Supreme Court rule the law unconstitutional.[/QUOTE] oh my god you haven't listened to any of the posts in this thread

worse punishment? are you like secretly fantasizing about putting obama in jail?

[QUOTE=thisispain;28022406]worse punishment? are you like secretly fantasizing about putting obama in jail?[/QUOTE] he'll get deported back to kenya!

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28022450]he'll get deported back to kenya![/QUOTE] IT'S ALL OVER OBAMA hand over your birth certificate!

[QUOTE=Glaber;28022393]Why was Lankist not unbanned again? I feel he'd be more effective without having to have some one pass along his messages. Now let's think for a moment. Up until now, things were going swell for Obamacare. The only opposition was the Tea Party Movement, Conservative Talk Shows, Fox News, Doctors (Both sides had them), and some politicians. But after passage, Democrats got voted out, The House fell under control of Republicans, States sued with 10 cases thrown out, 2 declaring the law constitutional, one just declaring the mandate to buy health insurance unconstitutional, and and one declaring the whole thing unconstitutional and VOID. (of course that last part means nothing right?) Now according to Lankist: When the government commits a crime, it keeps committing that crime until it gets a trial. So if this is true, this should mean that by the time they do get a trial, and possibly get convicted, the punishment would be worse? I would think that the Government wouldn't want a worse punishment should other judges and the Supreme Court rule the law unconstitutional.[/QUOTE] You have a awfully simplistic view of the world.

I wonder what America would be like without a constitution.

[QUOTE=blubafoon;28031264]I wonder what America would be like without a constitution.[/QUOTE] Uhh, it wouldn't exist. A constitution is pretty much the country. It is the document that says what the President is / does, what Congress is, what the courts are, and what the rights of the people are.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;28031834]Uhh, it wouldn't exist. A constitution is pretty much the country. It is the document that says what the President is / does, what Congress is, what the courts are, and what the rights of the people are.[/QUOTE] Britain has no constitution, yet it appears to exist. What is this witchcraft?

[QUOTE=blubafoon;28032029]Britain has no constitution, yet it appears to exist. What is this witchcraft?[/QUOTE] ... America was founded on a constitution. Around that idea and every idea on that page. Britan existed before that, and was brought into power by other means. Monarchy for example. People really don't think anymore I guess.

[QUOTE=blubafoon;28032029]Britain has no constitution, yet it appears to exist. What is this witchcraft?[/QUOTE] Just because Britain does not have a codified Constitution like the Untied States, doesn't mean it doesn't have one. The definition of Constitution is: A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.

[QUOTE=blubafoon;28032029]Britain has no constitution, yet it appears to exist. What is this witchcraft?[/QUOTE] Of course we have a constitution. It's just our constitution is massive and based on almost a thousand years of history

[QUOTE=blubafoon;28032029]Britain has no constitution, yet it appears to exist. What is this witchcraft?[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom[/url] go kick whoever taught you world history in the face

[QUOTE=thisispain;28035796][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom[/url] go kick whoever taught you world history in the face[/QUOTE] "Unlike many nations, the UK has no single core constitutional document. It is therefore often said that the country has an uncodified, or de facto constitution." Technically there is no one document as the "constitution", however, as the article states there pretty much is one. It's not unreasonable that he thought they didn't have one.

I think the Egyptians who rebelled against Mubarak should establish a constitution so another Mubarak doesn't exist after they establish a new government.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;28036288]"Unlike many nations, the UK has no single core constitutional document. It is therefore often said that the country has an uncodified, or de facto constitution." Technically there is no one document as the "constitution", however, as the article states there pretty much is one. It's not unreasonable that he thought they didn't have one.[/QUOTE] semantics for all intents and purposes the UK does have a constitution

[QUOTE=thisispain;28036942]semantics for all intents and purposes the UK does have a constitution[/QUOTE] I'm not saying they don't, I'm merely pointing out that it's not that weird that he didn't know they had one (at least a de facto one).

WTT Glaber for Lankist

[QUOTE=NoDachi;28037825]WTT Glaber for Lankist[/QUOTE] I would love to have someone back who actually makes me feel stupid. As great and superior as I feel with Glaber around, I would like to be made to feel stupid again.

I actually take back all the bad things I used to say about Lankist. I've seen how bad things can really get.