Originally posted by Chaka-Z0
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Discussion about hot topics trending today
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by jelgate View PostI can understand it the lawn even it I don't agree with it. I picture one of those suburban people who need a perfect house. I can't comprehend why someone would need to wash a driveway
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chaka-Z0 View PostIt is a matter of societal choices and that's the line folks on the right use all the time to justify their actions. Are you sincerely telling me that a first world developed country could not feed EVERYBODY, including the homeless, for free if they chose to? Only one or two billion taken out from the defense budget could do a huge difference. I call BS on that, tanks and planes are much more expensive than loafs of bread.
Now it comes down to what you, as a citizen, wants your government to spend your money on. Replicants for instance like to give corporations tax reliefs and decentralize the administration, leaving people to fend for themselves.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostDepends upon what is spilled on or stuck to it. I have to wash portions of mine several times a year; lawn clippings tend to dry out and stick, for example. Leaves can stain it...
What the hell do you need a clean driveway for? There is no valid, logical reason for it.Spoiler:I don’t want to be human. I want to see gamma rays, I want to hear X-rays, and I want to smell dark matter. Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can’t even express these things properly, because I have to—I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid, limiting spoken language, but I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws, and feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me. I’m a machine, and I can know much more.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostOnly once. But by someone who is authoritative on the subject. Perhaps the SCOTUS. That particular judge seemed to think it was unconstitutional as well, so you may not be right.
Obama did not change the law, he changed how it was applied to certain people. He did not overstep the boundaries by declaring DACA recipients legal (which WOULD be an overreach) at all.
If a JUDGE thought they could craft a legal argument to stop DACA, they would have, and that's not based on my reasoning, but yours, given how often you complain about "lefty 9th circuit".
2 options present themselves.
1: "Your" judge backed off because he could not craft a legal case
2: "My" Judges don't because they can, and you don't like that.sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostWhat do you think is unconstitutional?
Obama did not change the law, he changed how it was applied to certain people. He did not overstep the boundaries by declaring DACA recipients legal (which WOULD be an overreach) at all.
If a JUDGE thought they could craft a legal argument to stop DACA, they would have, and that's not based on my reasoning, but yours, given how often you complain about "lefty 9th circuit".
2 options present themselves.
1: "Your" judge backed off because he could not craft a legal case
2: "My" Judges don't because they can, and you don't like that.
But the order from Federal District Judge Andrew Hanen, issued Friday afternoon, may be only a temporary reprieve for DACA recipients: Hanen held that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their argument that the program is unlawful because it oversteps the authority of the executive branch.
"If the nation truly wants a DACA program," Hanen wrote, "it is up to Congress to say so."
Still, Hanen declined to put even a temporary halt to DACA because he found that Texas and the other states waited too long to bring their case.
We will have to see what SCOTUS rules when it gets there.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostFrom the article I posted:
As I've been saying all along; the LSoS did not have the authority to do this in the first place, according to that particular judge.
We will have to see what SCOTUS rules when it gets there.
Have you noticed anyone claiming the separation of children from their families is unconstitutional?
Mean, heartless and bastardly YES.
Unconstitutional?
No.
Illegal?
No.sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostMaintaining the value of my property?Spoiler:I don’t want to be human. I want to see gamma rays, I want to hear X-rays, and I want to smell dark matter. Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can’t even express these things properly, because I have to—I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid, limiting spoken language, but I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws, and feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me. I’m a machine, and I can know much more.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chaka-Z0 View PostThe rain does it for you? The leaf ''stains'' don't damage your driveway, unless yours is made of silk?
I've got a few stains on there that will be there till next resealing, even a pressure washer won't take 'em out without using enough force to dig into the asphalt itself.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostYES, he does. He cannot craft policy, nor can he contravene the constitutional right of the House to do so. What he CAN do is set sentencing guidelines which is a function of the DOJ, NOT the courts. Why do you think the Muslim ban got shot down so many times?
The SCOTUS has nothing to argue. Trump could direct the DOJ to impose lifetime sentences for illegal immigrants and that too would be within his power, much like separating kids for an indeterminate amount of time is ALSO within his power.
Have you noticed anyone claiming the separation of children from their families is unconstitutional?
Mean, heartless and bastardly YES.
Unconstitutional?
No.
Illegal?
No.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chaka-Z0 View PostThe water is potable, even if you get it from your external outlet. Why do you think I'm mad at these clowns for washing their driveways?
Our city council created the "water police" a few years back to fine people that water their lawn / wash driveway during the summer, but there's like 2-3 officers for the whole town.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Annoyed View PostNo offense, but I think I'll take the interpretation of a federal district judge over yours.
Comment
Comment