Jump to content

SuitedAces21

Members
  • Content Count

    25,554
  • Joined

Community Reputation

2,703 Excellent

About SuitedAces21

  • Rank
    9 Time Winner of the FCP 'Poster of the Year' Award
  • Birthday 06/15/2000

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

97,092 profile views
  1. joe biden calling it racist and xeonphobic was out there. so were new york leaders saying similar things. people on cnn. if you didnt see it you didnt want to. but then again, the response to everything these days is to call it racist. the accusation has no meaning anymore. these are just the ones i found in two minutes from the last few days. i'm sure i could find hundreds more from similarly minded "progressives." they know that if the eliminate the filibuster and add states its all over for constraints on their power. they smell that blood and they are going for it hard. it will have been nice knowing you all if they do, cause they gonna round me up and send me for reducation. but what they dont know is that i love big brother, i always have...
  2. sure sure. communism is terrible, but man its cool how they have control over their people. i didnt say nothing could/should be done. i said no matter what we do some people will die and not accepting that is a product of the media and bad politics. i'm old enough to remember trump banning flights from china and being called a racist. the good old days.
  3. haha, are you suggesting america should be more like Hong Kong, a territory that is under the control of a communist dictatorship that is currently losing most of its personal freedoms? not great, bob.
  4. oh yes, i would not have done the PPP. but, of course, i wouldnt have shut down the economy. i mentioned the checks because i spent last week begging my younger brother to move the 600 bucks into savings or invest it. he bought a new cell phone instead. good for the economy i guess, but he already had an iphone, so you know, kids. the amazing thing to me is people want the government to do SOMETHING, so they advocate for arbitrary shut downs. i would argue those shut downs are the opposite of doing something, they are the cowards way out. why not take the stimulus money and hire people to help clean business. set up out door dining. create jobs. build a new warehouse that we can use to house the sick now and turn into a youth center later. anything but just tell everyone to stay home. we'll never know, but if it hadn't been an election year or Hilary had been president, i do believe the national response is much different. but that's the way it goes.
  5. i would say that makeshift MASH units should have been erected in every major city to handle any overflow from hospitals. you put protocols into place for the level of patient assigned to those places and the federal funds allocated each state are then used to procure medical staff and equipment as necessary. they sent an entire medical ship up to new york in April and it remained empty, for the most part. but there are locations in every city that could have been used to house the sick. they did it in 1918 we could have done it now. we very obviously should have approached this like we were at war, mobilizing industries (we did a few times) and people to battle what was inevitable - people were going to get sick and die. the lockdowns are meaningless unless you're talking absolute, leave your house and the government will shoot you dead lockdowns. and obviously that isn't going to happen. everywhere i go people are out, they're wearing masks, and the virus is still spreading because it is a highly contagious virus and it was always going to spread. we could have used that money we wasted sending checks to people who didnt lose their jobs and created programs to train new nurses, people to care for the sick but not dying. think Rosie Riveter 2.0. but in the end people were going to get sick and die. this obsession with blaming people and saying that the people who died didnt have to is why you have such divide, because that is obviously not true. soon as that virus was loose in china there are people all over the world that were dead, they just didnt know it yet. in the same way that someday, hopefully not soon, but someday, a clot is going to break free in my body and go to my heart and i'll drop dead wherever i am. sad but true. but that is life. you're born, you live, you die. gonna happen to all of us. so gather ye rosebuds while ye may.
  6. that's the thing, no serious person is calling it a hoax. but that doesn't mean draconian lockdowns for all healthy people and children are rational responses. hope your dad gets better soon.
  7. odd timing indeed... https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/1348673192609591296?s=20
  8. the kung flu can't keep me down. i probably had it already and didnt even know. i'm just doing what i've always done, survive. got a nice promotion at work to Senior Vice President. no word on money increase yet so i'm not jerking off every night to the thought. but its something. gained 3 pounds in december, up to 166. i was just living high on the sugary hog. so we got to redouble our efforts in 2021 and get down below 160 for swimsuit season. your boy here wants to be lean, like jesus on the cross.
  9. i've grown lazy in my old age so i'm just in it for me. we can boogie nights it in my car with you as my personal coked out dirk diggler. but i want constant eye contact while you stroke it.
  10. my two inches never makes things wet, so i can't relate.
  11. i'm strongly opposed to ending the filibuster and packing the supreme court. I think it was serious oversight by the framers to not put both the filibuster and the supreme court maximum number in the constitution. in my dream scenario a constitutional amendment for both would be passed, but obviously that ain't ever gonna happen. this video of Scalia talking about our government is really interesting to me. the problem is, of course, that the supreme court was never meant to be this powerful. i especially liked his dissent in Obergefell to that point: "So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves." "But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect. That is so because “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . ” One would think that sentence would continue: “. . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution,” or perhaps “. . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation.” But no. What logically follows, in the majority’s judge-empowering estimation, is: “and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.” The “we,” needless to say, is the nine of us. “History and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.” "They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution."
  12. with the polls saying what they're saying and a democrat sweep being priced in, what are our thoughts on ending the filibuster to pack the supreme court, add two states, pass the green new deal, etc?
  13. trump is who he is, more concerned with ego and nonsense than getting the job done correctly. i have little doubt he doesnt want to be president, but his ego wouldnt let him walk away.
  14. me, three minutes into the debate last night:
×
×
  • Create New...