Rand Paul...Dumb as a Bag of Cunt Hair

[Epimethean]

Clean shaven is best.

[jackman]

whereas i agree that clean is best, it can be a nice surprise to have to floss my teeth (afterwards) from time to time. never been afraid of going into the ruffage.

[Epimethean]

Landing strips or trimmed are very navigable. Jungles, not so much.

BTW, this thread is better for this conversation, because Rand Paul truly is dumber than a deviled egg.

[Minimalist]

Stue, what you and Rand don't seem to grasp is even if YOU think they are wrong - they are still right.

See aforementioned Marbury v Madison.

[Annik]

Clean shaven is best.

What you really want is someone who is waxed, in that case. :3
///can'twaitforlaserhairremovalwhenIamolder



I don't agree with what Paul said in relation to the bill, but we must never, never, never put absolute trust in a group of humans just as flawed as you or me. Sure, they might get a lot right, but no one is a 100% success. I prefer to be optimistically cautious.

[Epimethean]

I've heard that optimistically cautious is common when going Brazilian.

[NoraBrimstone]

All I can think to say is: People fill bags with cunt hair? I had no idea.

[Epimethean]

Well, where'd you think it went? Nearly indigestible when it comes down to it.

[Brian37]

That's further than I could go. The supreme court is charged with determining the correct interpretation of the constitution so that laws may not be passed which are not in accord with it. So, by definition, their rulings do have the effect of defining what is constitutional. We can argue that their motivations were political or racist or something other than the well reasoned interpretation based on the constitution .. and we would sometimes be correct. But being the "supreme" court, their rulings are the final say on what is or is not constitutional .. even when they are mistaken until such time as they themselves make that correction.

So no they don't always make the "right" decision and they can go wrong for a number of reasons. But their decisions always officially decide what is or is not permissible constitutionally.

Yeah brian I've been using the terms interchangeably when I shouldn't have (though I would argue there is a very high correlation (under my definition))

Well so long as whateverist is correct I'm wrong then. It's 'constitutional', until they change their minds and say it wasn't, at which point it no longer is =P.

My definition was: In line with the constitution
and not: Is in line with what the supreme court says is constitutional

Would you say that the law is in line with the constitution though? (and I'm going to assume that that's what Rand meant, or that he is working under a similar misunderstanding).

Here is the battle throughout the history of our Constitution. It cannot nor should be treated as a ruler, because it can only be a Point of View, document. It is more set up to oscillate like a pendulum. It's only absolute is a ban on absolute power and the gauge of allowing for power shifts over long periods of time.

What we look back at now and say "that was unconstitutional" no matter what, like slavery or banning women from voting, is easy in retrospect. But what I think the founders did was crack that door open, but it was up to us as individuals to be the squeaky wheel.

The older I get the less fearful I feel no matter who is in majority power. Because no matter who wins short term, there is always long term opportunity to compete for the things I value.

I think the fear mongers on this issue will lose long term because once people start benefiting from it, they will not want to give it up.

So the Constitution is there for everyone, right and left, and it is not owned by any political party or religion. It is a gauge to allow for power shifts, protection of dissent, and allows that tree to bend but not break.

[cratehorus]

I think the fear mongers on this issue will lose long term because once people start benefiting from it, they will not want to give it up.

Yes but it is't about the mandate itself it's all about influencing the dialogue, they are attacking the obama/romneycare mandate, by pretending it's universal healthcare, ad thereby attacking socialism. which gets vote from the ultra rich, who hate socialism, and love plutocracy, and the crazy easily acred rednecks with underground bunkers who think "anyday now" Stalin will rise from the grave and rule the world.