minarchist
Regular Member
*YAWN* That's the best you got? I expected more...I truly expected more.
People who want to facilitate death camps cannot be reasoned with.
*YAWN* That's the best you got? I expected more...I truly expected more.
It is an indisputable fact that the "people" referred to in the 2nd Amendment were 100 percent MALE - comprising the militia. Therefore it logically would follow that citizens of the female gender have no CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED right to keep - let alone actually BEAR ARMS - lest at the forebearance of their fathers, brothers, husbands, or sons.
It is an indisputable fact that the "people" referred to in the 2nd Amendment were 100 percent MALE - comprising the militia. Therefore it logically would follow that citizens of the female gender have no CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED right to keep - let alone actually BEAR ARMS - lest at the forebearance of their fathers, brothers, husbands, or sons.
People who want to facilitate death camps cannot be reasoned with.
I'm going to propose a new forum rule: before anyone can respond to B92Lady, he must read at least three pages of her post history.
That ought to show her extensive history of self-contradiction, intellectual dishonesty, going in circles, evasion, and dismissiveness. If anybody is dumb enough to argue with her after reading her post history, they deserve any frustration they get.
I'm going to propose a new forum rule: before anyone can respond to B92Lady, he must read at least three pages of her post history.
That ought to show her extensive history of self-contradiction, intellectual dishonesty, going in circles, evasion, and dismissiveness. If anybody is dumb enough to argue with her after reading her post history, they deserve any frustration they get.
It is an indisputable fact that the "people" referred to in the 2nd Amendment were 100 percent MALE - comprising the militia. Therefore it logically would follow that citizens of the female gender have no CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED right to keep - let alone actually BEAR ARMS - lest at the forebearance of their fathers, brothers, husbands, or sons.
She likes the attention, IMO. Not that there is anything wrong with that, all of us do to some extent or we wouldn't be posting on a social site. But some just don't care what kind of attention they get or how. I honestly try to limit my contact with this type but I admit the more outrageous the post the harder it is to just walk away. Something to do with that train wreck theory.
Senators do not have to do anything about anything, but they are not prohibited from taking the floor if that is what they desire. Historically, the filibuster has been a useful tool for the Senate minority party since 1841. In the Senate, unlimited debate continues on the grounds that any Senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue. Debate is only limited in the House. "Cloture", the tool available to limit lengthy speeches since 1975, requires 60 votes to end a filibuster. If they can't get those votes, they get to listen awhile longer.Please, let's keep this thread clean, my friend. The filibuster you're talking about is not the filibuster Paul is engaged in; Senators do not have to talk during a filibuster, anymore.
The filibuster is a procedure, and therefore not in the Constitution... but that does not make it a violation of the Constitution any more than using Robert's Rules of Order is a violation of the Constitution.Paul is less than a Patriot, he refuses to follow the Constitution. The filibuster IS NOT in the Constitution. Maybe Paul will read about that during his silent filibuster?
The "silent filibuster" is another legitimate political tool. The announcement by the either party of an impending filibuster in the Senate forces them to take one of five actions, or possibly endure a 24 hour-18 minute "Strom Thurmond Special". They may choose to wait it out, invoke cloture, negotiate, surrender on the issue, or reform the bill. The Senate is not without options.Indefinite filibusters, particularly silent ones, are for cowards...no wonder Paul is engaged in them so regularly.
Reid "not taking up a House bill" is blatant cowardice... but, that power goes with the position he holds. (It should not.)Also, Reid not taking up a House Bill, is not a filibuster. You need to read-up, please, I'm begging you, on these sorts of processes.
If they are aware of nothing else in the Constitution, our Senators are cognizant of the First Amendment... for their use, anyway. Pax...filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions. (http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm)
Liberal.....err, a armed liberals selective bravado. B92FSL knows very well that no mere citizen will be coming to take her gun(s).Well then. So, the Second Amendment spoke nothing to Females?
If that's your conclusion, I encourage anyone who wants to come pick up my firearms, I'm your Huckleberry.
Liberal.....err, a armed liberals selective bravado. B92FSL knows very well that no mere citizen will be coming to take her gun(s).
B92FSL makes very very few valid points. On the rare occasion that she does make a valid point, View attachment 10252, it is almost certainly obscured by her inability to distance herself from her liberal agenda. The liberal agenda drives a liberal to express liberal personality traits that we read from her posts.
Oh, its easy. I saw who quoted me just above, and then didn't even bother to read it. I just scrolled right past down to your post. Piece of cake.
She doesn't pay genuine attention to other people's logic. In fact, given her self-contradictory history, she doesn't even pay attention to her own ideas. Why should anyone else bother to pay attention to her?
The filibuster should be smashed, crushed, filleted.
If you're against the bill, get your ass on the podium, and argue your ass off. Filibusters are for cowards.
Do you really think either party would debate in good faith changing anyone's mind? They vote along party lines unless someone buys their vote. I want a permanent filibuster. DC has done enough damage!
Here? On OCDO? I cannot disagree.I'm definitely a Liberal. I have no agenda here.
Since I didn't expect anything different from them how should I respond?
Why would anyone be surprised at Republicans "compromising"?