You want fucking lampposts? Then let us take your money and tell you how to live.
What always discusted me about prom is that his problem with his legal troubles wasn’t the gvt, but that they weren’t doing it RIGHT!
He believes in the po-lice. He just doesn’t feel they are doing their jobs properly. It makes him angry to the point that he frames his life as a revenge against it.
Goddamn is that contemptible.
Stop calling yourself an anarchist man. LAMP POSTS?!?!?!?
If you believe in taxes so much, you know you are allowed to send in as much money as you want. It’s not limited. You could send half your shit in. Wait taxes already take half your shit. Well you could throw in an additional half of the shit of the shit you are left with! Nobody does. Is it really any different than Negan?
" in a world as equally well saturated with truth and art as our own, determining where the enigmatical figure of reality leaves off the ivory gate of dreams does not matter so much as keeping hold of the given idea long enough for it to mature into an actual point of view; into the moral universe in which it might complete itself and thereby become a constitutive feature of our life and character." From my own volume: The End of Name-giving.
You’re talking about that kids and teenagers have a “Constitutional Right” to abuse drugs, yes? Yes.
Furthermore, you are ignoring the rise of Federal power and authority since the Civil War, which you seem to blatantly ignore with this foolish argument about State vs. Federal “Right” concerning the creation and implementation of laws. Congress is responsible for the mountain of laws which have accumulated since the Bill of Rights. Are some of them, many of them, Unconstitutional? Perhaps, so go ahead and file your Lawsuits and take it up with the Supreme Court. But you won’t. Because you’re not serious about your own topic, are you?
The Feds mostly fill-in-the-gaps anyway. Parodites has still yet to make a big ‘point’ concerning this topic, his intentions, and how things should or could be different.
“That’s Unconstitutional!” doesn’t mean much, when given context (between teenagers and hard substances).
But Parod doesn’t actually believe kids should do drugs, does he?
He’s just really, particular about following his constitution.
States can keep kids from doing drugs, if the federal government doesn’t.
For me, this isn’t really that important, either way.
How is it not important what powers the government has over you, and how is it not important if the government follows its own Constitution?
That you would trivialize this and even mock the fact that someone is interested in whether his government follows its own Constitution discloses a degree of human weakness Ive never seen before.
Did someone really just say this…
Im a bit nauseous, and literally, reading this. It really is the most apathetic, weakest thing Ive possibly ever seen.
Parod dodged the question 3 times at least. So he probably knows it’s wrong, but won’t admit it, because it destroys his premise regarding Constitutional authority and law. Because the Constitution, as it was founded, explicitly referred to land-owning WASPs. It did NOT refer to women. It did NOT refer to blacks. Thus it would not refer to teenagers or children either. But this would require a Deeper analysis of the Constitution, which apparently Parod is either unwilling to do, or cannot do.
I’m more of a consequentialist than a legalist stickler.
No state should let kids do meth anyway, that’s about as axiomatic as SG&E gets, now whether adults should be able to do meth is more debatable.
Yea I sort of agree with Parod that the fed should be restricted by the constitution, or at least insofar as it’s reasonable to be, insofar as it’s not, there’s processes for amending it, but on this particular issue, it’s inconsequential.