Reply With Quote
They are well programmed for eugenics, killing babies in the womb and tossing the elderly out with the trash.
even more creative. So that would eliminate at least 2 supreme court justices, Hillary, Bernie and many in congress.
You'd have to change the cons ution and tell people they better have it done by 70. In fact you'd have to draw the line at 62 since 2 terms are possible. So you could still be unable to draw social security but you cannot run for office because you're too old.
They are well programmed for eugenics, killing babies in the womb and tossing the elderly out with the trash.
Absolutely would require a Cons utional amendment, and I'm not under any illusion that will happen anytime soon, especially in this political climate.
You'd have to change the cons ution and tell people they better have it done by 70. In fact you'd have to draw the line at 62 since 2 terms are possible. So you could still be unable to draw social security but you cannot run for office because you're too old.
IIRC, the line I drew up was somewhere in the 60's, and you would need to be under it when you're elected (ie: entering your position, you can finish your term over it). The SCOTUS is more complicated because of indefinite terms.
Just retire already. Go play with your grandkids.
I want the elderly to go play with the babies, instead of being a menace to society. You're too dumb for this conversation anyways, go fetch me some Jack P
gotheem
^^ Beep boop
This is akin to "shut up and dribble" with "dribble" meaning something completely different.
I do think competency tests should be required and not administered by a family doctor who wants to remain doctor to the POTUS. However it's up to the voters. Let a younger man run, see how he does. Bootyplug didn't do well, nor did Yang or Tulsi or anyone young. Damn near anyone with a real chance is well established in either media culture or politics. These state reps and senators and such are only known locally. Rarely does an Obama like personality emerge.
I actually think AOC, if she gets her together and gets involved in a few more high profile events, could be a dark horse.
Well, no. Go ahead and enjoy your life with your family. Nobody is taking that away from them. Just stop working, and especially driving.
Heck, I'll be happy to accommodate an ap ude test as well into this. I admit not everyone ages the same. I'm willing to be reasonable.
Testing every two years? Would that be ok?
I'd be ok with extending the military code to also include the CiC. 68 being the retirement age. The problem is that POTUS is simply a chosen position and the cons ution provides remedies for incompetence in the Oval Office as long as congress agrees. Therein lies the invisible wall though, everything is decided along party lines. There's no real need for examination.
Up to age 65 then every year. But this is a completely different approach than saying elderly should not be looked up to. The white folks would be the only ones to agree with that, since minorities, especially immigrants, damn near worship their elders.
Yeah, it's just likely never going to happen. Especially on civilian positions. I just think we're not being honest with ourselves in some of this stuff.
Well, not asking to stop loving them. Just saying that this lady that's driving scared on the left lane doing 25mph on a 50mph road perhaps shouldn't be driving. Driving too slow can also be dangerous and cause accidents.
Politicos like Brandon are enamored with themselves. Just move on, you had a long career, make room for the next generation, good or bad.
Have to admit I lol'd at that. Definitely hate defund the police protestors and the autistic inauguration screecher maybe even more than rittenhouse
The evidence that slavery is evil is pretty overwhelming, chicken . only cultists can't admit that.
The problem though is the spate of mass shootings makes every "idiot running around with a gun" into a mass shooter in the eyes of people who don't know what is going on.
ing asshat bears a huge amount of moral culpability, if not legal.
This is a good example of why having everybody carrying guns is a bad idea. Friendly fire is a problem when you have trained soldiers.
Imagine some other "good guy with a gun" thinking this kid was some mass shooter, and it doens't take much to have a shootout with tragic consequences.
This is like saying "having everybody drive a corvette is a problem, just look at what Ruggs did!"
The 2A doesn't require everyone to carry a gun and the argument you start with is a strawman. Who said everyone should carry a gun?
Well, on the driving aspect specifically, we do have constant (every other year?) ap udes tests.
You also have to pass an initial test to obtain a license, it is indeed a license (a privilege granted to you, not a right), a big ass federal database on drivers, tickets, etc.
You can temporarily or permanently lose your license even if you're not a felon (didn't pay tickets, repeat offender, etc).
The government has ample powers to mandate and regulate manufacturer's safety standards (airbags, seatbelts, etc), and also drivers (mandatory insurance in most states, proof of emission tests in some others)
All of these things didn't really cause a black market of unregistered drivers and vehicles to proliferate either, which is interesting as well.
Clearly, it's not perfect, and won't catch every Ruggs out there. But it does have a big impact in keeping dangerous drivers off the road and in vehicular deaths, which have been steadily on the decline since the 70's.
Yet, I don't foresee that level of regulation being ok with 2A advocates? Certainly not even close with the NRA.
You missed the point. No one suggested everyone drive a corvette but even if they did, Ruggs' results don't indicate the corvette was the issue.
Also, not sure where you live that requires a bi-annual ap ude test for driving. Most states only require you pay and take an eye test. They don't even get a new photo in Texas.
I don't think I missed the point at all. I was pointing out it was a poor analogy because the regulatory environment between the two are vastly different.
An eye test is indeed an ap ude test. There's also a much more stringent ap ude test in order to get your initial license, which includes testing your training and education.
I wasn't saying these two are the same. I was saying the strawman would be the same as would the false conclusion based on it.
But if you want to continue along those lines, driving isn't a cons utional right.
I don't know that it's a strawman though. Having a massive amount of untrained people carrying/operating guns is likely a major liability, and the fact that it's very difficult to regulate makes this an even larger problem.
Agreed, though the 2A is also not outside the scope of government regulation. It is a much higher standard due to it being a right that cannot be arbitrarily denied.
Kyle is a good kid and everyone knows it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
