oudeis on 13/12/2009 at 02:13
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Well, yeah, but let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be for the plebes.
Don't make us bring this before the Tribunes.
fett on 13/12/2009 at 02:15
All this lawyer talk is making me horny. C'mere the both of you. :sly:
CCCToad on 13/12/2009 at 02:16
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Argue against it all you want, but that's the way it is because
that's the way it needs to be, and you're not going to change it.
Actually, thats the way it is because thats the way FDR wanted it so he could further his New Deal.
Quote:
That's not a straw man at all. You are trying to reargue a settled matter by "arguing against the notion that because things are a certain way means that is the way it should be."
Prove I'm trying to re-argue a settled matter. You can't, because you're counter is nothing more than Circumstantial Ad Hominem, and an inaccurate one at that. My intention is simply to say "yes, thats the way it is and I don't like the fact that thats the way it is". I'm stating an opinion, nothing more or less.
CCCToad on 13/12/2009 at 02:27
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Except for
Raich, that one was bs :mad:
It doesn't really matter that you think it was BS, thats the law and Congress was well within its rights to apply the commerce clause because the demand for Medical Marijuana in one state will affect demand in other states. So your personal feelings don't matter, because thats the law now.
Rug Burn Junky on 13/12/2009 at 02:28
Fair enough, you're entitled to hold that opinion if you so desire. But that doesn't mean that there's any validity to it.
CCCToad on 13/12/2009 at 02:35
I'l settle for that, its about the most anyone ever gets out of RBJ. Besides, arguing over the merits of congressional activism in general (except as it relates to this bill) is a bit outside the scope of this thread. Nevermind that I'd have to dig up a whole lot of research that I'm too lazy to re-research over the break.
I still think this bill is retarded and un-necessary intrusion by Congress. I really need to see who wrote this bill and then try to find out who their favorite NCAA team is, as I suspect thats a motivating factor.
demagogue on 13/12/2009 at 02:46
Members of Congress shamelessly pleasing their constituents with pork: stop the presses!
CCCToad on 13/12/2009 at 02:57
Pork applies to discretionary spending handed out to benefit specific districts (or states, for senators). Since the bill affects the NCAA in all 50 states, the term pork doesn't describe any aspect of this bill.
The cause for a tantrum here is that there doesn't seem to be any compelling government interest at stake to justify the bill.
Rug Burn Junky on 13/12/2009 at 03:11
Quote Posted by CCCToad
The cause for a tantrum here is that there doesn't seem to be any compelling government interest at stake to justify the bill.
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiz_show_scandal#Law_and_politics) Then nor was there here.
I don't disagree that it's an unnecessary intrusion. But you're still barking up the wrong tree as to why.
CCCToad on 13/12/2009 at 03:14
Quote:
any compelling interest (government or otherwise) at stake to justify the bill.
Fix'd
