Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Keep digging, you're almost there! More

Keep digging, you're almost there!

Comments Filter:

  • Then why keep something as modern as a ban on child labor?

  • Not that I expect anything less from you, of course.

    I'll try to keep this simple since you're more than a little slow.

    Lee does not favor Child Labor. His argument is that the power to ban child labor belongs to the States, not the Federal Government, therefore the Federal ban is unconstitutional.

    Personally, I think he's right. The 50 states are more than capable of setting their own labor laws.

    When you try to paint this as somehow "ZOMG CONSERVATIVES LOVE CHILD LABOR" you're either being completel
    • I won the bet!

      "Railgunner, with State's rights, in under an hour."

      Which would be a fine rebuttal really, if we hadn't had that particular trope used as cover for all kinds of nasty shit over the years.

      BTW, "therefore the Federal ban is unconstitutional" is incorrect, unless you think the SC doesn't have the power to adjudicate such matters.

      Thanks for playing!
      • Which would be a fine rebuttal really, if we hadn't had that particular trope used as cover for all kinds of nasty shit over the years.

        You argue like a chick. "But remember that time 80 years ago when" - it's not relevant to the discussion at hand. And much like a chick, you're completely avoiding the fact that you're either being stupid or willfully dishonest, and you've completely evaded the question of which one it is.

        Is it your time of the month or something, princess?
        • You argue like a chick.

          Yaaaaaaaaaaaawn. And you can't "smack" people around when your wrists are this limp.

          it's not relevant to the discussion at hand.

          Irony alert!

        • You argue like a chick. "But remember that time 80 years ago when" - it's not relevant to the discussion at hand. And much like a chick, you're completely avoiding the fact that you're either being stupid or willfully dishonest, and you've completely evaded the question of which one it is.

          Is it your time of the month or something, princess?

          I'm trying to think of something even remotely non-profane to respond to this... but honestly, I can't come up with anything better than "fuck you, sexist asshole".

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

            Lady, PLEASE don't feed the tro... oops, I'm guilty too, I bit, too.

            Too bad I used my mod points yesterday. I'll probably get more tomorrow, if so I'll certainly give him the "troll" or "flamebait" he deserves. He might as well have said "you argue like a drunken Irishman", which would have been equally offensive. And it's obvious that offensiveness was what he was after, not unlike the GNAA trolls.

            BTW, there's no reson to hold back profanity. Fuck him and the elephant he rode in on.

            • I just got mod points five minutes ago... but I forgot, I can't mod hime down, since I already posted here. DARN!

              • No no no.. Always mod him up. We want people to see. Put him up as high as possible so the kids can view the clown

              • I agree with countertrolling there; RG should never be modded down. I highly recommend modding everything he says "funny", since that is what he is going for with his act...

                Make 'em laugh, make 'em laugh,

                .... Make 'em laaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuugh!
          • "fuck you, sexist asshole"

            Drop 20 pounds and we'll talk, sweet cheeks.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by gmhowell ( 26755 )

              "fuck you, sexist asshole"

              Drop 20 pounds and we'll talk, sweet cheeks.

              Do you have pix to document that this is necessary, or are you trying to evoke an eating disorder?

              • Are you insinuating that she put down the bon-bon long enough to give a shit what I post?

                I don't know dude... she might find that more insulting than any insult I hurl.

              • "fuck you, sexist asshole"

                Drop 20 pounds and we'll talk, sweet cheeks.

                Do you have pix to document that this is necessary, or are you trying to evoke an eating disorder?

                No, he doesn't... many guys actually tell me "gain 20 pounds, and you would look more healthy"... I'm not even kidding you...

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by gmhowell ( 26755 )

                  "fuck you, sexist asshole"

                  Drop 20 pounds and we'll talk, sweet cheeks.

                  Do you have pix to document that this is necessary, or are you trying to evoke an eating disorder?

                  No, he doesn't... many guys actually tell me "gain 20 pounds, and you would look more healthy"... I'm not even kidding you...

                  TPIUWP

                  • "fuck you, sexist asshole"

                    Drop 20 pounds and we'll talk, sweet cheeks.

                    Do you have pix to document that this is necessary, or are you trying to evoke an eating disorder?

                    No, he doesn't... many guys actually tell me "gain 20 pounds, and you would look more healthy"... I'm not even kidding you...

                    TPIUWP

                    UATEHTLUACW...

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by gmhowell ( 26755 )

                      urban dictionary does not translate. Nor does the jargon file.

                    • UATEHTLUACW: Useless Acronyms That Everyone Has To Look Up Are Completely Worthless

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by gmhowell ( 26755 )

                      TPIUWP isn't particularly obscure. Next you'll be complaining about TANSTAAFL.

                    • TPIUWP isn't particularly obscure. Next you'll be complaining about TANSTAAFL.

                      Well, TANSTAAFL even had a German Wikipedia article, so I'm ok with it... but still, it's still obscure :P

            • "fuck you, sexist asshole"

              Drop 20 pounds and we'll talk, sweet cheeks.

              I have a BMI of 17~18... losing 20 pounds would threaten my life... if not outright kill me...

      • You didn't actually expect that a real conservative would take that bait, did you? Naturally, you get the fake one instead. Give it some time, you might draw a real conservative to the discussion - although I'm enjoying watching you two sling silly insults at each other.
        • although I'm enjoying watching you two sling silly insults at each other.

          Excellent! My Master Plan is going exactly according to my Master Plan!
        • Are you still peddling this theory that I'm not a conservative? Good Lord, how fucking stupid are you?

          I VOLUNTEER FOR CONSERVATIVE / TEA PARTY CANDIDATES. I ATTEND TEA PARTIES.

          • I VOLUNTEER FOR CONSERVATIVE / TEA PARTY CANDIDATES. I ATTEND TEA PARTIES.

            No, you don't. You're doing performance art, and I can respect that. Tell you what, since we're talking "behind closed doors" here, I think you're pretty good. I promise I won't expose you in the regular comments section. But the "you argue like a chick" thing makes it too obvious. Dial that back and I bet you can keep this up for a long time without being exposed.

            The best is when the other goofs think you're for real and start s

            • Careful, there. If you say it too much he'll accuse you of being me. After all, it is out of character for him to allow something truthful to propagate.

              • Careful, there. If you say it too much he'll accuse you of being me.

                But I am you. You don't remember creating me, father?

            • I attend tea parties. I am a conservative. A small "l" libertarian. I vote for Republican, and sometimes, Libertarian Party candidates.

              Saying I am not is nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy. And you really don't want to be as big of an idiot as the creepy gay obsessed stalker troll, do you?

              For the record, this is the last time I'm going to address it. You trolls can choose to face the reality that I am conservative, or you can continue to wallow in your own ignorance. The choice is yours.

              • And you really don't want to be as big of an idiot as the creepy gay obsessed stalker troll

                See? You did it again. No conservative is that funny.

                I'm still laughing at "You argue like a chick". I can't wait until my wife gets home and I try that out on her.

              • I am a conservative

                No, you're not.

                A true conservative can make an argument without contradicting himself, which you cannot do. But no wannabe conservative would present such a weak argument as yours, either; at least not in a place where reasonably intelligent people hang out.

                Which leads to the logical conclusion that you are a fake. You come here and intentionally present bogus conservative arguments just to make the conservative cause look silly. You do a fairly decent job of it (not that it takes much really) but

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

                  Most of the teabagging Kochites (Grand Nagus Koch started the tea party movement) aren't true conservatives, either. That's why someone had to coin the word "neocon", even though the idea isn't new, nor conservative.

                  The whole neocon movement is based on lies, deception, and falsehoods. Example -- the Wisconsin Governor blaming his state's fiscal woes on public employees rather than elected representatives, saying that he wants to strip unions of collective bargaining to save money, then allows them to colle

              • Ohh,, Poor ,poor RG.. I so wish you could see yourself, the mullet and greasy tank top with your belly hanging out the bottom, the Pabst(Lone Star, whatever), the TransAm... Even if that's not your real appearance, it's the picture you paint on Slashdot.. Definitely a retrograde.. You are a jewel in the pile of spam that fills the site.

                For the record, this is the last time I'm going to address it..

                As they say in the vernacular, "Not bloody likely"

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

                  Trans Am? No, more like a 1995 Jeep with trout decals and a gun rack!

                  • RG is 1985... wishing it was 1955, an idyllic time he once read about.. in place of the mullet and wife beater is a flat top and varsity jacket. A pickup truck with some rope replaces the car...

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

                LOL! You say "you argue like a chick" as if there are no women here (glad snowgirl called your mysoganist flamebait out, even though I'm against feeding trolls), then have the gall to call someone else a troll?

                You're hilarious. If you believe your own tripe (which I din't believe you do) it's even funnier.

                • LOL! You say "you argue like a chick"

                  Yeah, I finally lower the discourse to the level the Lefty trolls around here have always operated on.

                  I give you lefty trolls a taste of your own medicine, and the reaction from you dimbulbs is priceless.

                  You guys say I'm a troll? Call me whatever you want.

                  At one time I would have been interested in a civil discourse - but that's not possible here in this dump called slashdot. The lefty trolls aren't capable of a rational thought much less a discussion. They're
                  • Yeah, I finally lower the discourse to the level the Lefty trolls around here have always operated on.

                    Wahhhh! It's not my fault, it's the nasty libruls! Waaaah!

                    I give you lefty trolls a taste of your own medicine

                    Liberals are sexist pigs? By the time idiots like you get done name-calling, liberals are, well, EVERYTHING. That's a neat trick.

                    Call me whatever you want.

                    "Except, don't call me not a conservative, cuz that really gets my goat for some reason. I'm authentic, dammit!"

                    At one
                    • "Except, don't call me not a conservative, cuz that really gets my goat for some reason. I'm authentic, dammit!"

                      Captain Douchebag, please report to the 4th grade for remedial grammar lessons.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

                      Do you know what a quotation mark means? Ever read Huckleberry Finn? [virginia.edu] Its critics (at the time) made the same ignorant mistake you're making.

                      YOU don't know about me without you have read a book by the name of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer; but that ain't no matter. That book was made by Mr. Mark Twain, and he told the truth, mainly. There was things which he stretched, but mainly he told the truth. That is nothing. I never seen anybody but lied one time or another, without it was Aunt Polly, or the widow, or

                    • Captain Douchebag isn't an American, so pointing out Sam Clemens' grammar is specious. Or are you admitting his "Sore-E" Canadian Public School system has failed him?

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

                      No, I'm pointing out that to call someone out on quoted grammar is stupid. His nationality has nothing to do with it and is immaterial in the context presented. As to the Canadian education system, I know nothing about it, but they'd have a hard time developing one that's worse than ours.

                    • He wasn't making a direct quote, therefore, your argument is (still) invalid.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

                      Jesus, the illiteracy I see here too often. No, make that stupidity -- willful stupidity. You should know damned well that if you put a sentence in quotation marks, it's a direct quote whether the quoted source is cited or not.

                    • He was writing dialogue. Poorly, I might add. Who's the stupid one again?

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

                      You, of course.

                    • No, just misguided, and under a very strong influence of indoctrination going back to childhood. It is these childhood fantasies he clings to. Call it a "Santa Claus syndrome". Perfectly normal to an extent. The trick is knowing when to let go and see things as they are. He and his close minded friends are trying to reshape the world to fit their delusions. I still find it utterly amazing that people can be so absurd, with a straight face.

                      And go to the sites they read. They are talking birds and barking dog

          • theory that I'm not a conservative?

            In order for a scientific hypothesis to reach the point of being considered a theory, some parts of it must be tested and shown true. Hence by calling it a theory, you are accepting that at least some parts have been proven true. Thank you, but I didn't need your verification today, you provided it previously.

            I VOLUNTEER FOR CONSERVATIVE / TEA PARTY CANDIDATES.

            Sure ... And I work for the Queen of England; I fly her around in an SR-71 Monday through Thursday. We can both make those statements as much as we want, but they don't become true just because w

          • "I ATTEND TEA PARTIES"

            What, where you destroy bags of tea, that you bought with your own money?

            The Boston Tea Party, of 1773, dumped tea owned by a crown corporation into the harbour.

            They also had a sense of humour about their mission. Calling it a "tea party" was ironically funny - not a self-righteous agenda.

            • His money? Hell no.. He'll take our money out of the bank to invest in pork bellies, use the profits, default on the loan, and then bitch when we demand our money back.

      • Which would be a fine rebuttal really, if we hadn't had that particular trope used as cover for all kinds of nasty shit over the years.

        If you truly believed in freedom, though, shouldn't local communities have the right to have all of their own kind of nasty shit, as long as people are willing to move out?

        Personally, I'm surprised that the end result of the 14th Amendment wasn't a huge proliferation of steamship companies offering one-way tickets to Africa at horribly exploitive prices. But I guess no civ

        • Damn companies would sink the ships...Besides, wasn't the African leadership into the slave trade as deeply as the colonists? Common cravings no matter where you go. There is no "moving out". One planet, mkay? Moving out means moving in on somebody else, and the result is rarely pretty. Too many fences. A big prison is still prison

    • The 50 states are more than capable of setting their own labor laws.

      The states did such a great job of "setting their own labor laws" in the 1850s.

    • Neither CS nor TFA said or implied that Lee was against child labor laws. But it does show Lee's colors -- if you're going to rail against the commerce clause covering everything (and I do), child labor laws are pretty stupid ones to go after.

      I can see where that clause would allow child labor laws. If I work as a laborer for a widget manufacturer and they ship widgits to other states, then my labor shoud be covered under that clause.

      What I can't see is how the feds can use the commerce clause to outlaw mar

      • They didn't "outlaw" MJ any more than they did gold before 1971.

        How is my growing a plant in a closet and consuming that plant myself have anything to do with commerce at all, let alone interstate commerce?

        Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

        The other reason? There's simply not enough resistance..

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

          They didn't "outlaw" MJ any more than they did gold before 1971.

          They certainly DID outlaw it. Posession is a felony punishable by prison.

          Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

          That doesn't answer the question, and although that's citied as the basis for illegal pot, that wasn't the same. Filburn was growing wheat commercially, and wanted to use what he grew that was over the limit for his personal consumption. It seems to me that in the specific case cited, the ruling was logical.

          In the case of pot, (a) you

          • Well hell, I'm no damn lawyer. But I don't need to be when playing paper - scissors - gun. The gun always wins. The paper depends on the mercy of the guy with the itchy trigger finger. It's not whether he knows the law. It's only a matter of what his whims are that particular day. The law is designed by pirates and exploited to legitimize plunder. I cannot relate. The only reason we aren't all dead is because we submit. This is what gives us the appearance of "civility". If you want to relive medieval times

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

              I don't know how to discuss anything beyond that.

              Me either, because what you say is true. I just point out how illogical the laws are. And not only are they illogical and irrational, they're not even evenly enforced.

              • No, the law is not illogical. It was created by and exists to serve power. Just look around. The masters are well protected from the slaves. We are at "peace". Even in "revolution", power only changes hands. It doesn't go away.

  • Could this be true? They certainly are probing the limits. And the so called opposition? Handcuffed to the crazies as they go over the cliff.. Might be a bad sign, like a when school of fish scatter just before the shark shows up. Stay alert, there's a surprise around the corner..

Slashdot Top Deals

"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure

Close