Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

I'm sure a good guys did wear some black hats. Lash Larue apparently wore black to play up being a bad good guy, but yes he and Zorro are good counter examples. Hoot seems to have worn all kinds of hats.But the simplification is on me and not Huckabee who did not really say anything about hats or Native Americans. I doubt it ever occurred to Huck to think of something from the fifties as anything but something great to be emulated. Most people have figured out by now that those old movies were simplistic nonsense that romanticized an earlier era into something not quite the truth.Isn't it about time these guys were out of politics? Are 50s cowboy pictures really that great a lesson on how a president ought to handle foreign relations? Edited by NoNukes, : change error to era.

duplicateEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Is this any good? I typically avoid John Wayne's stuff.After reading the plot synopsis, I see your point. This is definitely a movie that would confuse the heck of Huckabee.

I cannot agree with this sentiment. Isn't this supposed to be a something of a comedy thread? Are there any easier jokes to be made than those that result simply quoting something Sanctorum says?

Definitely a basketball player. It was Chris Washburn who played his college ball at NC State.ABE:Of course considering where Washburn's career went after the amphibious proclamation, it is probably unkind to use this term in a jest about another athlete.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Worker threw exception | www.rawstory.com | Cloudflare

quote:

---

Donald Trump 'Would Love To Have Oprah' As His Presidential Running Mate

---

Donald Trump has always seemed like Democrat double agent out to make Republicans look bad.

Trump is doing well, but you've exaggerated what your article says, which is that trump is leading in one poll, namely the one conducted by The Economist.Here is a list of quite a few recent polling results. Trump is leading in a couple, Paul is leading in a couple, Ben Carson is leading in several polls, while Jeb Bush is leading in most polls. Note that Trump has been leading for a couple of months in the Economist poll.Nationwide opinion polling for the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries - Wikipedia

Well given that you've defined doom to be worse than only those things that have already happened, wouldn't that t be impossible for anyone to have manage that accomplishment in the past? I mean you are basically giving out free pass starting a war in Iraq and the last big financial crisis.Perhaps you would like to rephrase?

Apparently your life experiences in the sixties did not include taking a detailed look at what was going on in politics. A look at actual history tells us that the assassination is basically the start of the modern attitudes about gun control. In the year after Kennedy was killed there were a dozen gun control bills introduced in Congress. I don't believe that has happened in any similar period since. Yet you don't remember any of that.I'll also note that while your statement that you were a teenager during the sixties is true, your statement is only true with respect to the late sixties (early to late 1968)when you finally reached the wizened age of 13. You were something like 8 or 9 years old when Kennedy was shot, so your recollection for most of that period is not that of a teenager.I would suggest that you drop this line of argument. Like many of your claims, this one does not stand up to the light of day.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Refine age estimate

You are simply making an excuse for not knowing what was going on. There was lots of activity in Congress in 1963 and 1964 and you did not notice. The fact that you did not notice is not an argument. How many federal gun control bills have been passed in the last decade, marc9000?Again, this line of argument is not getting you anywhere. It is entirely based on your ignorance of what was going on around you. The 1968 gun acts were finally passed after the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and MLK. If we compare that situation to what is happening today, we find that gun control activity in the 1960s was more substantial and more successful than it is now.We could also note the uptick in gun control activity after Reagan was shot and John Lennon was killed.Your comparison is simply BS. I wonder who much of the rest of your rant is similarly flawed.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Isn't it illegal to do that? I thought PAC spending had to be separate from the official campaign?ABE:My Bad.It is clearly not illegal for a PAC to fund new staff. There are rules in place that don't allow the money to go immediately to current staff. But if history is any predictor such steps indicate a campaign on its last legs.

quote:

---

In 2012, the support of a super PAC helped former House Speaker Newt Gingrich win South Carolina's primary and continue competing for the presidency after traditional campaign money dried up.

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

18 Things Donald Trump Could Do to Drop in the PollsDisplays actual kindness to a woman
Sensibly backs down from something. Okay, not ALL Mexicans are rapists. My bad.
Seizes your property via eminent domain to build a townhouse complex. THE TRUMP RANDALL. LUXURY STARTING AT $1.6 MILLION.
Turns gay
Photographed driving a Honda
Photographed with a Muslim
Photographed with a salad
Actually rehearses for a debate
Dies
Starts wearing basketball jerseys around
Sympathizes in ANY way with anyone with a net worth under $10 billion
Releases hundred-dollar bills down onto a rally, followed by poison gas cloud
Removes combover to reveal Hello Kitty scalp tattoo
Fucks Jen Garner’s nanny
Says literally one nice thing about the media
OMG THE APPRENTICE WAS FIXED
Reveals birth certificate stating he was born in Haiti
Demands more female Avengers18 Things Donald Trump Could Do to Drop in the Polls | GQ

By chance I was watching a re-run of the Lone Gunman this weekend. The episode involved someone flying a commercial aircraft into the World Trade Center Twin Towers. Apparently this episode was first televised on March 4, 2001, which was six months and one week prior to the real terrorist attack.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

To the best of my knowledge, the Dred Scott decision was never explicitly overruled. Some parts of its holding are quite obviously bad law. Namely the portions related to citizenship and the rights of black people are null and void in face of the 13-15th amendments.On the other hand, some parts are merely moot but not overruled, like the question of whether a slave becomes free when taken into a state outlawing the practice. Or the question of whether or not federal law allows the government to affect property rights in general the way slavery was affected with the Missouri Compromise.Every so often some one will cite Dred Scott in a legal brief but most lawyers have better sense than to do so. The few that will cite Scott generally will cite other law and decisions. Nobody worth listening to would seriously cite the case in an attempt to question the rights of black people in the US. That would be stupid.Dred Scott case was decided on a large number of grounds. One reason a colored person could not sue in US court was because he was not a citizen and because he could not demonstrate citizenship in a foreign country because records of his (or his parents) being "imported" from some country were never available. That holding may still be applicable to foreigners who find themselves in a similar situation.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What issue is raised by Dred Scott not being overruled? Some irrelevant idiot mouthing off about the constitution does not seem all that important to me. The fourteenth amendment says that all anyone needs to prove that they are a real citizen is their birth certificate.Beyond that, the way we overrule case law is by deciding new cases, and those cases can only overrule relevant parts of other case law. The assumption is that parts of a case that are not overruled are likely to be good law. You cannot remove case law by a simple review process in the same way you can clean up statutes. And even a statute review would be a waste of time and money.