This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Kinder Graham
Pages: 1 ... 111112113 114115 ... 243
3361
« on: November 06, 2014, 05:49:54 PM »
Yes. And it should fall under the Full Faith and Credit clause
3362
« on: November 06, 2014, 05:47:50 PM »
That's no dictator!
First I'm going to conquer the Earth Kingdom...
I will not vote
Who said anything about voting?
Muahahahahahaha
Not taking over my kingdom
*eats grapes* You need assistance?
3364
« on: November 06, 2014, 05:18:42 PM »
Goodbye NASA...
Under Clinton, NASA budget declined. Under Bush, it was raised
3365
« on: November 06, 2014, 05:18:04 PM »
3366
« on: November 06, 2014, 05:12:38 PM »
wat 
3367
« on: November 06, 2014, 05:07:34 PM »
Yes!
3368
« on: November 06, 2014, 05:02:27 PM »
http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/glossaryf/f/What-Is-The-Difference-Between-Full-Time-And-Part-Time-Employees.htmThe Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not specify the requirements for a full time employee, leaving the matter to employers the Bureau of Labor Statistics defines full time as 35 or more hours a week, but this is just for statistical purposes, and is not a law. Many employers require fewer hours for full time status, such as 35, 32, or even 30 hours part time employees typically don't receive
Paid time off, such as vacations or holidays
Employee benefits such as health insurance
And part time employees are often excluded from participation in employer retirement plans.
3369
« on: November 06, 2014, 04:59:42 PM »
But the U.S Constitution is of high moral standards because of it's contents. Again, the Constitution is right by virtue and content
Are you purposely being denser than a neutron star at the moment, or do you really not realise the blatant stupidity of what you're saying?
Nah, you're being denser than a black hole
You don't seem to be understanding what "by virtue" means. It doesn't mean that the constitution in question is of moral composure, it simply assumes that the constitution is morally correct in itself.
So, let me phrase it a different way. Is a constitution respectable precisely because it is a constitution, or because this constitution enshrines moral content?
enshrines moral content
3370
« on: November 06, 2014, 04:55:44 PM »
But the U.S Constitution is of high moral standards because of it's contents. Again, the Constitution is right by virtue and content
Are you purposely being denser than a neutron star at the moment, or do you really not realise the blatant stupidity of what you're saying?
Nah, you're being denser than a black hole
3371
« on: November 06, 2014, 04:33:56 PM »
Meta used the term virtue
vir·tue
ˈvərCHo͞o/Submit
noun
1.
behavior showing high moral standards.
"paragons of virtue"
synonyms: goodness, virtuousness, righteousness, morality, integrity, dignity, rectitude, honor, decency, respectability, nobility, worthiness, purity; More I didn't call the U.S. Constitution virtuous by any measure of language, though.
"By virtue of being" assumes the thing in itself has virtue, not that the contents of the thing has virtue. Saying torture is moral by virtue of being torture isn't a comment on its effectiveness; it's saying torture is moral simply because it is.
But the U.S Constitution is of high moral standards because of it's contents. Again, the Constitution is right by virtue and content
3372
« on: November 06, 2014, 04:32:48 PM »
>california
There's your problem
It's like, they purposely want gun crime to rise but at the same time it needs to be lowered
3373
« on: November 06, 2014, 04:31:43 PM »
Julius Caesar
3374
« on: November 06, 2014, 04:25:59 PM »
No, because the thing being talked about is the U.S Constitution
nigga you've got some serious Orwellian shit going on in your head.
Nope Meta used the term virtue vir·tue ˈvərCHo͞o/Submit noun 1. behavior showing high moral standards. "paragons of virtue" synonyms: goodness, virtuousness, righteousness, morality, integrity, dignity, rectitude, honor, decency, respectability, nobility, worthiness, purity; More
3375
« on: November 06, 2014, 04:22:26 PM »
Because both are correct. It's correct by virtue and content
The two can't both be correct. It's either by virtue or by content.
A constitution which endows government oppression, racism and whatever else cannot be right by virtue but not content.
Except the U.S Constitution doesn't endow those things
It's like you're trying to miss the point.
No, because the thing being talked about is the U.S Constitution
3376
« on: November 06, 2014, 04:20:46 PM »
Because both are correct. It's correct by virtue and content
The two can't both be correct. It's either by virtue or by content.
A constitution which endows government oppression, racism and whatever else cannot be right by virtue but not content.
Except the U.S Constitution doesn't endow those things
3377
« on: November 06, 2014, 04:10:59 PM »
virtue of being the constitution
Which the amendment process shows to be self-evidently false. The fact that you'd place such stock in a document, regardless of what it says, says a lot about you. I wouldn't want you to be a citizen of an Orwellian State.
Well when you give a loaded question, I can only pick one of two I believe
How on earth was it a loaded question? It was really quite simple. A constitution can only be valid in one of two ways. The first being by its own virtue; it being axiomatic. The second is that is codifies the correct content.
Because both are correct. It's correct by virtue and content
3378
« on: November 06, 2014, 04:03:58 PM »
virtue of being the constitution
Which the amendment process shows to be self-evidently false. The fact that you'd place such stock in a document, regardless of what it says, says a lot about you. I wouldn't want you to be a citizen of an Orwellian State.
Well when you give a loaded question, I can only pick one of two I believe
3379
« on: November 06, 2014, 04:02:46 PM »
Iraq was friendly to the U.S government during that time, especially since the Iran-Iraq War had post-revolutionary Iran fighting.
I don't think that excuses arming Hussein.
More so then arming Syrian rebels who have ties with extremist groups
. . .
No.
No it isn't. If you think arming an Islamofascist, criminal psychopath is equal to arming a group of extremist rebels you really need to re-evaluate your priorities.
*sips sweet tea* Nice opinion
3380
« on: November 06, 2014, 04:02:03 PM »
So what you're saying is it is right because you agree with it.
It's right because it is right
welcome to American law
FTFY
3381
« on: November 06, 2014, 04:01:15 PM »
So what you're saying is it is right because you agree with it.
It's right because it is right
Oh my God, stop dodging the question.
Is it right by virtue of being the constitution, or is it right because of its contents?
virtue of being the constitution
3382
« on: November 06, 2014, 04:00:08 PM »
evening
3383
« on: November 06, 2014, 03:59:35 PM »
>not spaghetti
3384
« on: November 06, 2014, 03:58:52 PM »
So what you're saying is it is right because you agree with it.
It's right because it is right
3385
« on: November 06, 2014, 03:57:38 PM »
So small
3386
« on: November 06, 2014, 03:56:58 PM »
Nope
3387
« on: November 06, 2014, 03:56:24 PM »
Iraq was friendly to the U.S government during that time, especially since the Iran-Iraq War had post-revolutionary Iran fighting.
I don't think that excuses arming Hussein.
More so then arming Syrian rebels who have ties with extremist groups
3388
« on: November 06, 2014, 03:55:16 PM »
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Ignoring that is no different than Congress enforcing laws, despite not their role to do so
Has it ever occurred that the law of the land, regardless of its altitude, could be wrong?
Nope. Free speech, privacy, self-defense, fair trial, etc is far from wrong. The U.K can learn a thing or two from the U.S
Has it ever occurred that the law of the land, regardless of its altitude, could be wrong?
Nope. Free speech, privacy, self-defense, fair trial, etc is far from wrong. The U.K can learn a thing or two from the U.S
3389
« on: November 06, 2014, 03:51:39 PM »
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Ignoring that is no different than Congress enforcing laws, despite not their role to do so
Has it ever occurred that the law of the land, regardless of its altitude, could be wrong?
Nope. Free speech, privacy, self-defense, fair trial, etc is far from wrong. The U.K can learn a thing or two from the U.S
3390
« on: November 06, 2014, 03:50:24 PM »
For Reagan, you forgot to add the fact he armed and supplied our enemies
lolno
Reagan sent supplies to the Mujahideen who were people against the invasion of the Soviets. After Russia left, the Mujahideen set up a legi and sovereign government called the Islamic State of Afghanistan. After this, extremists rose up and are what we know as the Taliban. They ousted the real government and set up a non-recognized governemtn
ohai
Iraq was friendly to the U.S government during that time, especially since the Iran-Iraq War had post-revolutionary Iran fighting.
Pages: 1 ... 111112113 114115 ... 243
|
Show Posts
