NYC Seriously?

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
And Eli will always be a dingbat dummy no matter what! :lecture

25262_BIG_Edith_Bunker_Dingbat_supports_Archie_Bunker_for_President_campaign_button.jpg

On the contrary, I am awesome! Also, when I look down I can see my ween! No, not you, my ween! errr ween-ie...

:nana:

*pokes Ween in the belly* Woohoo! :wave
 
And she clearly knows you well. :monkey1

You would swear that the only thing she knows how to say is STFU when we meet. I mean, she is such an accomplished actress. She won an Oscar at age 11 for Best Supporting Actress in the Piano. And now she appears on a top rated HBO series.... Surely with accolades like that, you would think she would have something more meaningful to say. :dunno
 
You would swear that the only thing she knows how to say is STFU when we meet. I mean, she is such an accomplished actress. She won an Oscar at age 11 for Best Supporting Actress in the Piano. And now she appears on a top rated HBO series.... Surely with accolades like that, you would think she would have something more meaningful to say. :dunno

i have been a big fan of hers since...............well...............ever since i found that gif..............:lol:lol:lol
 
This is entirely different. Cigarette second hand smoke has been proven to be a danger to people around it. Are you telling me there is a second hand 20 ouncer at play? :slap:lol

Only when drunken by kids with ADHD! :slap:lol But my point is that every time there's a proposal that challenges social mores there's always an element crying victim. And in this case all the law would do is prohibit an unhealthy amount of sugary beverage sold in single severing units. It's about the marketing of unhealthy food-stuff -- emphasis on stuff -- to, yes, adults, but especially kids. It's not about personal freedoms. The free market gave us 64oz SuperBigGulps for 89 cents marketed to children. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to curb that behavior. :dunno
 
And your posts speak to your ignorance. You know as much about how the death penalty is handed down as you do about Social Security. Yes, the government carries out the execution, but it's the jury, your peers, that have the power to execute. They're the ones that deliver the death sentence, not the government. But hey, if you were as bright as you pretend to be, you'd already know this. :wink1:


Please re-read your own sentence:

"Yes, the government carries out the execution, but it's the jury, your peers, that have the power to execute."

The jury DOES NOT have the power to execute. After the trial, the jury goes home! The jury doesnt strap you into the electric chair. The jury doesn't put the needle in your arm. The jury doesn't put you in the gas chamber.

The jury DOES have the power to let the govt execute. THE ONLY PARTY WHO HAS THE POWER TO LEGALLY EXECUTE IS THE GOVERNMENT. And many ppl are ok with govt having this power. As you wrote, "Yes, the government carries out the execution,"

The power to execute can't be privatized, delegated, or extended to a 3rd party. The jury can't say we want to extend this power to Johnny, or Steve. And the govt can't say "we'll let Larry kill this one." The power rests solely with the government.

And when the jury does decide to let the govt execute, they do so while acting in a govt building (ie- a courthouse), in government proceeding (ie- fact finder in a trial), following govt rules (jury instructions). They can't go down to the barbershop and decide to hold a death penalty trial. The whole thing has to be sanctioned by the govt.

The verdict is simply the authorization of the govt's power to execute.
 
Only when drunken by kids with ADHD! :slap:lol But my point is that every time there's a proposal that challenges social mores there's always an element crying victim. And in this case all the law would do is prohibit an unhealthy amount of sugary beverage sold in single severing units. It's about the marketing of unhealthy food-stuff -- emphasis on stuff -- to, yes, adults, but especially kids. It's not about personal freedoms. The free market gave us 64oz SuperBigGulps for 89 cents marketed to children. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to curb that behavior. :dunno

This is ALL about personal freedoms. :slap:cuckoo:
 
Only when drunken by kids with ADHD! :slap:lol But my point is that every time there's a proposal that challenges social mores there's always an element crying victim. And in this case all the law would do is prohibit an unhealthy amount of sugary beverage sold in single severing units. It's about the marketing of unhealthy food-stuff -- emphasis on stuff -- to, yes, adults, but especially kids. It's not about personal freedoms. The free market gave us 64oz SuperBigGulps for 89 cents marketed to children. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to curb that behavior. :dunno

Swing! And a miss!:)
 
It only has to do with personal freedom in the sense that it's in the way of implementing the ban. Once it's out of the way, I suppose liberty would be moot.
 
why do we have to pay for health insurance when illegal aliens get it for free?
 
Back
Top