A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I believe you also need to launch missiles into the Afghan mountains for the policy to be fully implemented.

A capital idea! Let's ship some over from Iraq and see what we can do with them.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Not as concerned as I am by the fact that in 2007 the third largest city in the nation is the personal fiefdom of a corrupt, oppressive, racist family and their corrupt posse, all with blood on its hands; which family conspires with organised crime in the administration and control of such fiefdom. I am further concerned by the amount of racism and corruption in the police department of said city. Public. schools.

Those are modern day tragedies. If the state can make a quick profit off the lottery that is minor to the ongoing crimes in chicago/cook county/

(A) Why do you enjoy this so much?

(B) Why do you seem to go in cycles of quietude followed by comparatively loony posting? I'm not trying to lure you into anything outable, but manic depression can be treated nowadays.

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But, in jolly old England, the sovereign could always change his or her mind and revoke such things; certainly the Charters of the various trading companies were altered or revoked and became political hot potatos on more than one occassion. I think there is a reason our constitution needed to spell out that the states should make no law impairing the obligation of contracts.

Adder can opine on this: Does the contracts clause apply to contracts with the government, or only between private parties? I thought it was the latter, and if the government impaired its own contracts (or obligations) it was a taking (for example, the Winstar/banking cases).

Anyway, bigger point is that I can imagine that Illinois in an effort to maximize teh apparent value of the patent right will give up many regulatory rights. When its subsequent legislatures decide to do things differently, I suspect a takings claim will lie.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Then why does Al-Zawahari practically parrot Durbin's, Mutha's (et. al.) anti-war diatribes in his "Missives from an Afghan Cave, Parts 25-32"

Ah, I see. Al-Zawahari didn't hate the United States until the Democrats taught him how.

I gave up litigation a long time ago - was that a qualified admission?

No.

I gave you 2 direct links and refused to bother linking to the HuffPost and KOS, since no one is denying either.

Once again -- the links didn't say that US troops were torturers, which is what you accused the sources of. They said a lot of stuff about the Bush Admin -- some accurate, some stupid, some foolishly hyperbolic. But not what you claimed they did.

You gave up litigation a long time ago, so I understand that you may no longer realize that what you did is called "mischaracterizing the testimony." Or, "bullshit" (see, e.g., opening statement in My Cousing Vinny).

What more do you want?

"more" implies that you actually proved any part of what you said.

But let's leave that aside. Since you also said that the NY Times has called US troops torturers -- not just the one who actually torture people, but US troops in general -- then give me a cite for that. If you can actually show the NY Times saying that US troops, in general, are torturers, then I'll acknowledge you are right -- hell, I'll treat you to dinner.

If you can't, you admit that you are full of crap and were just in a slanderin' mood.

Deal?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Adder can opine on this: Does the contracts clause apply to contracts with the government, or only between private parties? I thought it was the latter, and if the government impaired its own contracts (or obligations) it was a taking (for example, the Winstar/banking cases).

Anyway, bigger point is that I can imagine that Illinois in an effort to maximize teh apparent value of the patent right will give up many regulatory rights. When its subsequent legislatures decide to do things differently, I suspect a takings claim will lie.

I can't tell you what's happened in the last hundred and eighty years or so since the decision, but didn't the Darmouth College case apply the contracts clause to a state-issued (originally crown-issued) charter, essentially what we're talking about here?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Those are modern day tragedies. If the state can make a quick profit off the lottery that is minor to the ongoing crimes in chicago/cook county/

Are you implying that a government agency in Illinois can participate in a $10 billion transaction (of even a $10,000 one) without it involving a crime or, at least, a subversion of the public interest for private gain? Do you actually know anything about Illinois?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Slave thinks the military gives succor to the enemy

"Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. "


This makes no sense. Shouldn't the Americans in Iraq, of all people, be most aware of all the Good Things Going On In Iraq? You know, the things the Vast WorldWide Liberal Media Conspiracy (plus FOX) have hidden from us?


60% of the middle class HASN'T fled the country. 15% of the populace DOESN'T openly support killing Americans.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(A) Why do you enjoy this so much?

(B) Why do you seem to go in cycles of quietude followed by comparatively loony posting? I'm not trying to lure you into anything outable, but manic depression can be treated nowadays.

Penske self-medicates with boxed wine. When he runs out, you get the comparatively loony posting.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
"Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. "


This makes no sense. Shouldn't the Americans in Iraq, of all people, be most aware of all the Good Things Going On In Iraq?

You realize that all of the military isn't in Iraq, right?

Interesting, yes, that most of the military who disapproved think we ought to have greater presence there (and in Afghanistan, iirc). Which is to say, they don't disagree in the mission.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Adder can opine on this: Does the contracts clause apply to contracts with the government, or only between private parties? I thought it was the latter, and if the government impaired its own contracts (or obligations) it was a taking (for example, the Winstar/banking cases).

According to Robert Caro, Robert Moses used the Contracts Clause to insulate his various authorities -- governmental bodies -- from having their powers restricted, by guaranteeing the bonds they issued with the full power of the authority, or some such arrangement. It sounded like a neat trick.

I am a little familiar with the Winstar cases, and think the issues there had to do with various doctrines of governmental immunity, but not with the Contracts Clause.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I was just amused by the number of members of Congress (both sides of the aisle) paying more attention to their Blackberries than to the speech.

How else where they going to identify which pages were watching the speech in their underwear?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by nononono
You realize that all of the military isn't in Iraq, right?

Interesting, yes, that most of the military who disapproved think we ought to have greater presence there (and in Afghanistan, iirc). Which is to say, they don't disagree in the mission.

Where does it correlate those who thought we need to have a greater presence and those who disapproved?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Adder can opine on this: Does the contracts clause apply to contracts with the government, or only between private parties? I thought it was the latter, and if the government impaired its own contracts (or obligations) it was a taking (for example, the Winstar/banking cases).

Anyway, bigger point is that I can imagine that Illinois in an effort to maximize teh apparent value of the patent right will give up many regulatory rights. When its subsequent legislatures decide to do things differently, I suspect a takings claim will lie.

How is this really different than Nevada granting a gaming license to Harrah's?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
How is this really different than Nevada granting a gaming license to Harrah's?

Does Harrah's have a 75-year license?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Does Harrah's have a 75-year license?

And is anyone under the impression that Harrah's profits fund the state? And has Nevada agreed to the tax rate applicable to Harrah's for a 75-year period?