TakeYouToTasker Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 5 hours ago, The_Dude said: Because in this case the POTUS CAN. He he can have the drug rescheduled and there’s been a clear precedent set on this law being ignored by executive decision. We we practice common law and NOT code law, homey. Your rigid idea of how things work isn’t how things work. The intellectual gymnastics you're undertaking here are hillarious. You've now made the argument(s) that when Presidential Administrations violate the law, that the law transitions to make whatever violation of the law the President made the de facto new standard of legality because the President's illegal actions created a new legal precedent; and you've buttressed this hot mess with an assertion that the Code Law (and there by our entire legal structure, including Congress which has criminalized marijuana) is invalid anyway because we're actually guided by common law where it conflicts with Code Law anyway, so why have a Congress in the first place. This is so stupid that it actually hurts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 6, 2018 Author Share Posted January 6, 2018 56 minutes ago, Keukasmallie said: Wikipedia's website offers this definition of the site: "Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, created and edited by volunteers around the world and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation." So I'm thinkin' that the level of content ranges from Lorraine, in Grand Rapids, waiting at a red light to the most learned of scholars who has a spare moment for some Internet fun. I'll buy the offerings as background, but not as bet ya' life on it. As a guy who majored in history I gotta say it’s accurate as hell. But the main reason I utilized while going to school was for it’s citations. Wikipedia is VERY well sourced. 2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: The intellectual gymnastics you're undertaking here are hillarious. You've now made the argument(s) that when Presidential Administrations violate the law, that the law transitions to make whatever violation of the law the President made the de facto new standard of legality because the President's illegal actions created a new legal precedent; and you've buttressed this hot mess with an assertion that the Code Law (and there by our entire legal structure, including Congress which has criminalized marijuana) is invalid anyway because we're actually guided by common law where it conflicts with Code Law anyway, so why have a Congress in the first place. This is so stupid that it actually hurts. Im not entirely sure what you’re trying to say because you’re writing above your grade level. If you’re trying to tell me we practice “common law,” then my response is ‘yes, I know.’ See common law pays attention to precedents, intent, and interpretation. With me? So when a new precedent is set that can be used in legal arguments later. So since the Obama administration set new guidance on this law and it went unchallenged a new precedent was set. Tracking? So I did bring that up. Yup. I sure did. Now between you, me, and the fence post I must confess I prefer code law but that’s just because of my obsession with Rome.... And again, friend, Congress did not make marijuana illegal. They did one...it was overturned by the SCOTUS. In the early 70’s congress passed a bad law that allows the government to include the executive branch the authority to place drugs on their scheduling list. It was after that was passed that the Nixon administration added marijuana to the scheduling list. Still with me? So congress did NOT make cannabis illegal, the Nixon administration did. The SCOTUS has never decided to hear a case regarding the issue though obviously there have been requests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 8 minutes ago, The_Dude said: As a guy who majored in history I gotta say it’s accurate as hell. But the main reason I utilized while going to school was for it’s citations. Wikipedia is VERY well sourced. You taking on Keukasmallie regarding education level is not only funny but puts your ignorance on full display. Just because there is a chance that you might know something about the Amber Road doesn't mean you know jack **** about anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 6, 2018 Author Share Posted January 6, 2018 (edited) 36 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: You taking on Keukasmallie regarding education level is not only funny but puts your ignorance on full display. Just because there is a chance that you might know something about the Amber Road doesn't mean you know jack **** about anything else. Who is it funny, and how does it put my ignorance on full display? You’re just saying that because you’re obsessed with me, you can’t win an argument with me, and so you’re just making things up? ’I read you stated something about yourself sir, and that insignificant fact makes you a joke because I don’t like you and I say so!’ oh, Tommy, ?that is fascism. You’ll probably start talking for the entire board soon — that’s typically how these things divolve. ‘Everybody here thinks your a dummy!’ Probably something like that. Or maybe you’ll go back to suggesting I’m a basement dweller in my moms house which actually wouldn’t be so bad because who wants a mortgage? Edited January 6, 2018 by The_Dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 5 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Who is it funny, and how does it put my ignorance on full display? You’re just saying that because you’re obsessed with me, you can’t win an argument with me, and so you’re just making things up? ’I read you stated something about yourself sir, and that insignificant fact makes you a joke because I don’t like you and I say so!’ oh, Tommy, ?that is fascism. No dumbass, you assume things that you don't know. The fact that you have an undergraduate degree in European History is nice but it has no bearing on and shouldn't be used to shore up your feeble attempt to arbitrarily justify changing a law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 6, 2018 Author Share Posted January 6, 2018 1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said: The fact that you have an undergraduate degree in European History is nice but it has no bearing on and shouldn't be used to shore up your feeble attempt to arbitrarily justify changing a law. This is EXACTLY why I’ve continually stated you don’t deserve a place at the table with me. Source that. Show where I came in and said, ‘listen boys, I have a 4-year degree so that knowledge equips me to dictate this law should be changed!’ find where I said that... but ya can’t because I NEVER said that. You just now lied by suggesting I said that which isn’t shocking because you’re **** at debating and stupid people always have to resort to insult and lies when they’re too stupid to win a debate based on their knowledge and wit. It’s basically Trump’s strategy. Now what hat you can find is a comment where I said ‘I believe in the accuracy of Wikipedia because I routinely used it for its information and citations while I was going to school.’ Thats a a far cry from the bull **** you’re suggesting. Youve got nothing. You have a tiny woman-sized brain. Tiny. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 6 minutes ago, The_Dude said: This is EXACTLY why I’ve continually stated you don’t deserve a place at the table with me. Source that. Show where I came in and said, ‘listen boys, I have a 4-year degree so that knowledge equips me to dictate this law should be changed!’ find where I said that... but ya can’t because I NEVER said that. You just now lied by suggesting I said that which isn’t shocking because you’re **** at debating and stupid people always have to resort to insult and lies when they’re too stupid to win a debate based on their knowledge and wit. It’s basically Trump’s strategy. Now what hat you can find is a comment where I said ‘I believe in the accuracy of Wikipedia because I routinely used it for its information and citations while I was going to school.’ Thats a a far cry from the bull **** you’re suggesting. Youve got nothing. You have a tiny woman-sized brain. Tiny. I have no desire to sit at the kiddie table with you, misogynist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 6, 2018 Author Share Posted January 6, 2018 1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said: I have no desire to sit at the kiddie table with you, misogynist. You also have no desire to represent the facts. Tiny, tiny, tiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 1 hour ago, The_Dude said: As a guy who majored in history I gotta say it’s accurate as hell. But the main reason I utilized while going to school was for it’s citations. Wikipedia is VERY well sourced. Im not entirely sure what you’re trying to say because you’re writing above your grade level. If you’re trying to tell me we practice “common law,” then my response is ‘yes, I know.’ See common law pays attention to precedents, intent, and interpretation. With me? So when a new precedent is set that can be used in legal arguments later. So since the Obama administration set new guidance on this law and it went unchallenged a new precedent was set. Tracking? So I did bring that up. Yup. I sure did. Now between you, me, and the fence post I must confess I prefer code law but that’s just because of my obsession with Rome.... And again, friend, Congress did not make marijuana illegal. They did one...it was overturned by the SCOTUS. In the early 70’s congress passed a bad law that allows the government to include the executive branch the authority to place drugs on their scheduling list. It was after that was passed that the Nixon administration added marijuana to the scheduling list. Still with me? So congress did NOT make cannabis illegal, the Nixon administration did. The SCOTUS has never decided to hear a case regarding the issue though obviously there have been requests. Talk about mental gymnastics. If your argument is that Obama's executive orders were unchallenged, thus setting anew precedent, how can you argue that the next executive doesn't have the right to set the next precedent? And if you care to cite Wiki, cite the entire paragraph on why it hasn't been rescheduled through administration by Executive. Thus making you another paper libertarian, because of your blatant disregard for the rule of law & procedure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, The_Dude said: You also have no desire to represent the facts. Tiny, tiny, tiny. The real Dude didn't hate women: Edited January 6, 2018 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 6, 2018 Author Share Posted January 6, 2018 13 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: The real Dude didn't hate women: Me neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 4 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Me neither. What alternate universe do you live in when you can say something like this: "Youve got nothing. You have a tiny woman-sized brain. Tiny." and then say you don't hate or at least look down on women? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 1 hour ago, The_Dude said: Who is it funny, and how does it put my ignorance on full display? You’re just saying that because you’re obsessed with me, you can’t win an argument with me, and so you’re just making things up? ’I read you stated something about yourself sir, and that insignificant fact makes you a joke because I don’t like you and I say so!’ oh, Tommy, ?that is fascism. No, it's not. And if you're going to cite a piece of paper as a credential for how much smarter you are than everyone, you are going to get the living **** beat out of you. Many of us here have several. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 6, 2018 Author Share Posted January 6, 2018 (edited) 57 minutes ago, GG said: Talk about mental gymnastics. If your argument is that Obama's executive orders were unchallenged, thus setting anew precedent, how can you argue that the next executive doesn't have the right to set the next precedent? That would be a flawed argument, but that’s not my argument. It’s your fault that you think that’s my argument, not mine. 8 minutes ago, DC Tom said: No, it's not. And if you're going to cite a piece of paper as a credential for how much smarter you are than everyone, you are going to get the living **** beat out of you. Many of us here have several. That’s not what I’m doing, jackwagon. 1/3 of the country has a degree. They’re not special. But who’s going beat the tar out of me? We’re on a message board. You can’t touch me. And Tommy, a degree doesn’t make a man smart it just makes him educated. There’s a difference. My business partner is not educated but he’s one of the smartest men I’ve ever met and I’ve met the best and brightest. 36 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: What alternate universe do you live in when you can say something like this: "Youve got nothing. You have a tiny woman-sized brain. Tiny." and then say you don't hate or at least look down on women? Oh I LOVE looking down on women — as they’re looking up at me. I freaking love that. That’s the best. But sometimes you gotta remind they’re down there to do a job and to quit making eye contact. Edited January 6, 2018 by The_Dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 6 minutes ago, The_Dude said: That would be a flawed argument, but that’s not my argument. It’s your fault that you think that’s my argument, not mine. That’s not what I’m doing, jackwagon. 1/3 of the country has a degree. They’re not special. But who’s going beat the tar out of me? We’re on a message board. You can’t touch me. Oh I LOVE looking down on women as they’re looking up at me. I freaking love that. That’s the best. Oh, so you're a sexist too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 4 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: Damn, you are full of yourself. Your preemptive attempt to legitimize Wikipedia by stating that it has your approval is narcissistic and an amateur move so transparent, that if you were a decent person, I would pity you. You should go back to the kiddie table and work on your game. Seriously, Wikipedia is more legit than some accepted sources. I mean, what are you looking for on an Internet message board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 6, 2018 Author Share Posted January 6, 2018 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: I have no desire to sit at the kiddie table with you, misogynist. 1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said: Oh, so you're a sexist too? Um....you need a thesaurus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 4 minutes ago, Paulus said: Seriously, Wikipedia is more legit than some accepted sources. I mean, what are you looking for on an Internet message board? 4 minutes ago, Paulus said: Seriously, Wikipedia is more legit than some accepted sources. I mean, what are you looking for on an Internet message board? Yes, seriously? Think about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 (edited) ITT: "Constitutional experts" who don't know who controls the DEA... There are quite a few of em'. Some posters really suprised me with their stupidity (not gonna name names- but, you know who ya are). The stupid anals of all time. Edited January 6, 2018 by Paulus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 2 minutes ago, Paulus said: ITT: "Constitutional experts" who don't know who controls the DEA... There are quite a few of em'. Some posters really suprised me with their stupidity. The stupid anals of all time. Even Boyst wasn't able to get away with that. 10 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Um....you need a thesaurus. You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts