The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

That's how it will be in the Republic of Texas.











Remember The Alamo!

Actually on votes concerning spending there should be some weight to the amount of taxes you're paying. The more skin you have in the game, the more you have to say.

So then enlisted personnel should decide what military endeavors the U.S. pursues? I mean, they literally have the most skin in the game. Right?











Audie Murphy (http://www.google.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

So then enlisted personnel should decide what military endeavors the U.S. pursues? I mean, they literally have the most skin in the game. Right?

Excellent point, our military members should have more of say in which wars we become involved in.

So you believe military members should vote rather than follow orders?

Do you want to reactivate your Leroy nick for this one?

So you believe military members should vote rather than follow orders?

No person should have more of a vote than a military member. So you would deny them the right to vote because they have to follow orders?

If you would log in as Leroy you would have to tell yourself that allowing military members to vote on what wars, missions or activities they want to participate in could very possibly hinder military readiness. You might, posting as Leroy, use the example of allowing members to vote on allowing beards to show that in many instances, allowing service members to vote is counterproductive to readiness.

Talk it over with yourself and see which of you wants to address the voting issue.







JustLeroyMe

Grog talks everything over with the Marxist voices in his deformed head.

That's why johnforbes can't debate. He's incapable of seeing all sides of an issue.

johnny has become convinced that "thinking something over" is the same as "hearing voices" so he fearfully eschews ever thinking about anything.

If you would log in as Leroy you would have to tell yourself that allowing military members to vote on what wars, missions or activities they want to participate in could very possibly hinder military readiness

So where do these votes on missions or activities you talk about take place and who is doing the voting?

For conservatives, corporate interests trump individual interests except when it comes to the 2nd amendment...

That would be Commander-in Chief Barry.....with his "pen and his phone". As evidence has shown in Benghazi, he loves to watch Americans die.

Elkin, you think in cartoons.

Liberals wish to limit the 2nd Amendment, but not the 1st.

As to debate, you could add Clownhicker's IQ to Elkin's IQ and still not arrive at room temperature.

johnforbes wrote:Elkin, you think in cartoons.

Liberals wish to limit the 2nd Amendment, but not the 1st.

As to debate, you could add Clownhicker's IQ to Elkin's IQ and still not arrive at room temperature.

Whose idea was citizen's united?

Now corporations are individuals?

Talk about a conservative supreme court decision that was comical...

Anybody who doesn't understand the corporate-person concept is free to enroll in law school.

Only young people think of judges as wise or objective.

A lawyer is a person who has persisted through law school. Some are very smart, and many (like Biden and Quayle) have quite ordinary minds.

A judge is a lawyer who knows a politician.

It is incredibly silly, in this century, that judges (i.e., lawyers who know politicians) wear robes and respond to nonsense such as "Your Honor."

Roberts, a nominal Republican, made a complete fool of himself with the Obamacare ruling because not one single person in the country -- including Obama -- thought Obamacare was a tax.

Nor is it. The individ mandate was NOT in the revenue portion of Obamacare, and Obama haughtily denied it was a tax.

Roberts was a fool, and he exposed the Court as a pack of fools, and this is true whether one is liberal or conservative.

After Roberts made that incredibly stupid ruling it was hopefully posited by some that, "He was playing chess when everyone else was playing checkers." So far the evidence of that assertion has yet to come to light and apparently much more credit was given than was due.
It would have been interesting to be a party to discussions between Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas after that ill advised ruling.

johnforbes wrote:Anybody who doesn't understand the corporate-person concept is free to enroll in law school.

Only young people think of judges as wise or objective.

A lawyer is a person who has persisted through law school. Some are very smart, and many (like Biden and Quayle) have quite ordinary minds.

A judge is a lawyer who knows a politician.

It is incredibly silly, in this century, that judges (i.e., lawyers who know politicians) wear robes and respond to nonsense such as "Your Honor."

Roberts, a nominal Republican, made a complete fool of himself with the Obamacare ruling because not one single person in the country -- including Obama -- thought Obamacare was a tax.

Nor is it. The individ mandate was NOT in the revenue portion of Obamacare, and Obama haughtily denied it was a tax.

Roberts was a fool, and he exposed the Court as a pack of fools, and this is true whether one is liberal or conservative.

Since corporations have "personhood" do they have 5th amendment rights?

Elkin, surely you are a nice enough young chap, but you don't have the intellect or the education to understand the point.

johnforbes wrote:Elkin, surely you are a nice enough young chap, but you don't have the intellect or the education to understand the point.

Please educate us...

Elkin, if you want to understand the nuances of legal arguments, do the work.

Get good enough grades and test scores. Unless you are a minority, in which case you don't need 'em. Then go to law school, read the books, study up.

Lazy people always think there is some shortcut, but there isn't.

Am I capable of understanding nuanced arguments in physics? No, I have not done the work to obtain any degree in physics.

There are physicians in my family, but I can follow their discussions only so far because I didn't go to med school and do the work to fully understand the topics.

^^^If this moron had spent the same number of words explaining the point instead of explaining why he can't be bothered to explain the point, there would actually be some point in johnforbes posting something on this forum.

As it is, he just admitted that he won't ever bother to tell us anything we don't already know.

Why does johnforbes even bother to draw a breath, let alone post on a discussion board?
He's useless, with nothing to contribute.

Clownhicker looks up to Audie Murphy.

Not in terms of anything but height.

Indeed, Mickey Rooney towers over Clownhicker.

^^^^That's all dimwit johnforbes has when he gets his ass kicked: "Well, you're fat" or "But you're short."
Like anyone cares what johnforbes thinks about anyone's height or weight. :lol:

It's like johnny never left his grade school playground.
You would think that Vietnam would have made him grow up, but it clearly didn't.




I might as well respond to johnny's next post right now to save time---"No, you are."

(Ha ha ha, take THAT, johnny.)

We had no playground at my elem school, which covered six grades.

No kindergartens, no middle schools, no teacher unions.

The emphasis in our high school, which also had six grades, was on the crucial things in life -- a jumpshot like Jerry West's, drag-racing on country roads, and slowdancing in the gym with Eva the exchange student from Austria.

Her sister Ruth was also lithe and smoldering.