|
|
|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
|
"The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Estee 56999 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-05-14, 07:35 AM (EST)
 
  |
|
"The United States officially declares war on Canada." |
Burger King has purchased Tim Horton's.
|
|
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
kingfish 17929 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-05-14, 09:14 AM (EST)
 |
|
1. "RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada." |
Rats. I expected more from that headline.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
PepeLePew13 25459 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-06-14, 00:00 AM (EST)
|
|
4. "RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada." |
LAST EDITED ON 12-07-14 AT 09:17 AM (EST)
The Conservative Party (currently the governing party with Prime Minister Stephen Harper) is relatively close to being Republican.
Feh. Tim Hortons survived being owned by Wendy's a number of years ago before going solo again. They'll do fine with this partnership with Burger King - if BK has any common sense, they'll leave Timmys alone and piggyback on them to gain ground in Canada while also opening up some Timmys locations in the U.S. I'm in Michigan at the moment, and I'm seeing more Tim Hortons here than any other coffee-slash-donut place, including Starbucks. Meanwhile, I've yet to see a Burger King on either side of the border over the past week. Tim Hortons looks alive and well. ETA: Been a while since we've had to pass out a lime helmet (though you, Estee, are certainly excused with the way things have been slow here on the boards)... http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID6/38508.shtml
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kingfish 17929 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-09-14, 10:51 AM (EST)
|
|
9. "RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada." |
The constitutional convention, like was held to write the original constitution, circa 1787? And hasn't been held since? Once again, I confess, I did not know that that could be done again, or that anyone would seriously contemplate doing that. I must have been asleep in civics class that day. I know you're sort of being tongue-in-cheek serious, and I know I've pushed your BK mischievousness into a tangent, but I see what you're saying (now, anyway) as far as those being possibilities. But just to be serious for a moment, I see no way that a system of laws can, within reason, grant everyone the freedom of expression and individual beliefs, yet legislate against all of the crazy and self-destructive ideas. So we really have to depend on the collective sanity and perspicuity of American voters to prevent nut jobs and their nut job ideas from damaging our society. OK, that is scary.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
kingfish 17929 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-09-14, 11:59 AM (EST)
|
|
11. "RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada." |
Is that in the existing constitution? What would be the threshold? 3/5ths (30) of the states? And I count 29 after the 2014 election. Ok, I see where you’re coming from. One more state and they take over the world!You’ve managed to scare me. A little. But since it takes years just to get an amendment signed, it should also take years (decades) for a new constitution to be written and agreed on, and the American voters would have that time to voice their opinions thru the intervening gubernatorial elections. And I just cannot see the people nor the Feds (they actually define state’s rights, after all) allowing this to happen. I know I’d be voting Democrat. And hating it. But if it does, reserve me a spot in your protest line. Or in the exodus line to Canada. We can depend on the sanity of a few GOP governors. Surely there are some sane ones? Heck, your Governor wouldn’t be for that nonsense, would he? It would take for all the Governors to all be in agreement, and the ability of all of the GOP Governors to act in a coordinated way. So the disunity of our Government and the inefficiency of our bureaucracy are our best friends? Bottom line, there is no appetite among the American public to rewrite the constitution. It is a sacred political document. And although technically there may be a path for doing it, practically speaking it wouldn't be done without backing from the voters. Pass the Kool-ade.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
newsomewayne 9318 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-16-14, 10:37 AM (EST)
|
|
14. "RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada." |
U.S. Constitution - Article 5Article 5 - Amendment The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. So, yes, it is in the existing constitution. Currently 57 50 states, so...
34 to hold convention,
38 to pass amendment. What I'm not sure about is who chooses the form of state acceptance, either state Legislature or state convention? Is it whoever acts first, the elected officials or the people? Can it vary from state to state, or does it have to be done the same way in every state? Are the votes secret or will it be run by the unions? 
Laziness Suggested by Syren, 2005
‘Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.' - Dr Richard Lewontin, evolutionary Marxist at Harvard University.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
kingfish 17929 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-16-14, 11:58 AM (EST)
|
|
15. "RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada." |
Thanks. Article 5. I did look it up after the above discussion, but up to then I had never focused on that alternative process. Apparently I was asleep that day in civics. So 2/3rd (34) of the states have to hold separate conventions, and each convention has to vote (by a simple majority?) to propose an amendment. Then 3/4ths of the states (38) have to ratify any proposed amendment before it can be law. (I know, that’s what you just said. Just wrapping my mind around it). The general language of that article does leave room for interpretation, which probably means it would be years if not decades until the final and definitive Supreme Court Decisions are made. Which would give the voting public a lot of time to effect changes to the outcome by voting in or out representatives (ironically, including senators) who represent their opinions. I like the 17th amendment though, and would not vote for anyone who would be for abolishing it, I like for senators to be elected by constituents. And clueless as I am, and also aware that for every idea there’s someone that’s pro, and someone that’s con, I’ve never heard of a serious movement to abolish it, so don’t be giving anyone any ideas, OK? And, BTW, a fairly strict interpretation of the 1st Amendment is bedrock to our survival as a nation of free people.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
Estee 56999 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-16-14, 01:10 PM (EST)
|
|
16. "RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada." |
And in the name of that argument, you could also repeal the 13th. For starters.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
newsomewayne 9318 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-16-14, 03:27 PM (EST)
|
|
17. "RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada." |
I'd say there's a big difference between the two arguments.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
