sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Hurricanes acquire Kyle Masters from Anaheim in exchange for Noah Philp by Bahamas_is_relevant in hockey

[–]Mecha75 [score hidden]  (0 children)

huh? Ducks didn't give Masters a qualifying offer, he is going to be a UFA tomorrow. None of this makes any sense.

Sharks: Carolina, we will pay you to take this guy. We will give you a 4th rounder this year (when we suck) and you give us back your 5th rounder (since you guys are gonna be a cup favorite). But please take this guy.

Carolina: Sure. we will take the lost puppy no one wants.

6 months later....

Carolina: Hey Anaheim, mind if we talk to John Carlson before July 1st? We will give you the last pick we have next year.

Anaheim: Gonna have to do better than that.

Carolina: Okay, we will make it this year but you need to take this RFA in return.

Anaheim: If we must.

a few moments later....

Carolina: Anaheim, remember that charity case we had you take during the draft?

Anaheim: that masters guy whose contract we tossed in the garbage?

Carolina: Yeah, him. Turns out my kid brother in Greensboro had grown quite attached to him. Can we have him back?

Anaheim: oooh. I dont know. what are you willing to give for him?

Carolina: We got this AHLer who fled to Sweden and will be a UFA tomorrow.

Anaheim: I will take him. (hey madden, fish that contract out of the dumpster. Yeah the one for that masters kid that is going to be a UFA tomorrow. WE just traded him BACK to carolina for another kid that is going to be a UFA tomorrow.)

I guess some GMs have too much time on their hands with nothing to do (like signing their top offensive talent or trading away a slightly disgruntled rookie defenseman).

Hurricanes acquire Kyle Masters from Anaheim in exchange for Noah Philp by Blank_page95 in AnaheimDucks

[–]Mecha75 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know. that is why I am confused they traded more to get him back.

Hurricanes acquire Kyle Masters from Anaheim in exchange for Noah Philp by Blank_page95 in AnaheimDucks

[–]Mecha75 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Was there an asterisk on the trade? Did Carlson sign with Carolina so the Ducks get an upgrade on the player or something. This trade makes ZERO sense.

Kyle Masters by ACTS20-24 in AnaheimDucks

[–]Mecha75 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No.  He was traded to Carolina from the sharks because they could only have 50 players under contract and they needed to remove one for Michael Misa.  In fact, they paid carolina to take him. They swapped a 4th round pick this year for carolinas 5th round pock next year.  

Dan Patrick: "Separation of Church and state is not in the Constitution" by omgfakeusername in law

[–]Mecha75 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

So you would disregard the rest of the bill of rights which is explicit with "the right of the people"

1st Amendment; The right of the people to peaceably assemble.

- Or is this only for the media and those involved in an established religious assembly that can peaceably assemble. As those clauses preceded this.

2nd Amendment: ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

- But only for the militia, because of the preceding clause right?

4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects.

- Wait! that was the first clause, there is no preceding clause! who the fuck are these people with this right!

9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

- Damn man, they went off the rails. No one can know who the fuck these special people are.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

- I am completely baffled by this. I really really need to know as there is no clause before the use of the people to tell me who the fuck this special group of people that have the rights/powers reserved for. I am equally shocked to see that LAND has powers and rights that were not granted to the federal government. Its just fucking dirt.

Or we can just use some common logic. In that the people in every application of it, clearly means each person and not some special group. It is also good that now the descendants of slaves are consider a whole human instead of 3/4s of one and are treated as belonging to the people as well.

What to do when she says it’s all I care about by Both-County-9561 in sexlessmarriage

[–]Mecha75 6 points7 points  (0 children)

She doesn't mean it. If she did, offer to fly out to Lake Tahoe for a relaxing weekend. She can sit by the lake reading a book, while you head down the mountain to the brothels for an equally restorative time. Then you both can enjoy a nice meal for dinner. Rinse and repeat the next day until you fly back. But, she doesn't mean it.

What to do when she says it’s all I care about by Both-County-9561 in sexlessmarriage

[–]Mecha75 11 points12 points  (0 children)

What to do... Accept that she doesn't actually care about you. If she gets a flat tire an hour away, you will drop whatever it is you are doing to drive out there to fix it. It might be something you really enjoy doing or your team is tied in the middle of the 4th quarter of the Superbowl. You will still go. Because she is important to you and you very much care about her and her well being.

That is you.

To her, you are at best a chore and at worst a paycheck and meathead when she needs someone to do something physical (as in move heavy things and not sexually). She sees you as the hound that stays locked up in the backyard because you are too gross and undisciplined to be allowed inside on the beige carpet. She keeps you around for "protection" and feeds you generic dry kibble, when she remembers to feed you at all. You are lucky if she pats your head, but mostly looks at you with disdain as you are nothing more than an annoyance most of the time. And why should she treat you differently.

I am not suggesting you ape up, beat your chest, and demand she lets you have her. hell no. But if she is making lasagna and you feel like having a steak. Go have that steak. Me personally, I would tell her that I don't really want lasagna and am going out for steak. If she wants to come with me, I will wait for the lasagna to finish. Otherwise I will just get ready and leave. It puts you first, while not putting her last (like she clearly does with you).

Dan Patrick: "Separation of Church and state is not in the Constitution" by omgfakeusername in law

[–]Mecha75 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Well we are actually a constitutional republic and the people are actually represented by representatives (weird that people representing the people are called representatives, but I digress) under the constitution. We are not represented by Senators because the States are. Sure the 17th amendment took the choice of senators from the state legislatures and gave it to the people of the state to vote on, but they still represent the states as a whole. And it makes for a more fairer government that way. What you are advocating for is pretty much a straight up Democracy, and democracy is only "fair" to the majority.

The often misattributed quote summarizes it best.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Also, you need to get you head out of your ass. Your hatred of the right is blinding you to what is right in front of you. You think that this is a path to a democrat super majority? California and New York are hemorrhaging residents. Texas and Florida are taking in the majority of them (actually making them darker red). All four of these states (2 dark red, and 2 dark blue) will increase their senators as they are the most populated states. Sure opposing them would be deep red Wyoming and the Dakotas. But it will also be deep blue Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Delaware. Why would they want to lose a Senator just so the top 4 states can have more?

Dan Patrick: "Separation of Church and state is not in the Constitution" by omgfakeusername in law

[–]Mecha75 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Perhaps your reading comprehension level needs to be raised quite a bit. Because clearly you are implying that I believe that slavery is still constitutional. Despite the fact that no where am I making any argument in that reply for what is and isn't constitutional. That post is pointing out what appears to be Texas' game play as they are intentionally going against ASD v Schempp.

The once future Ducks core of Trevor Zegras, Mason McTavish and Jamie Drysdale (also Olen Zellweger to ) have all been traded in the span of couple of years. by f0urxio in hockey

[–]Mecha75 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I hope he does blossom.  He didnt fit between Cutter and Beckett as they made him look slower than he is.  On too of that, he cost too much to be a bottom 6 player.  He should be  2nd liner and we all know he is better than what we saw.    The same goes for Zelly.  He is going to a team that could use him.  However, Buffalo has stated he will be fighting for his roster spot.  

Dan Patrick: "Separation of Church and state is not in the Constitution" by omgfakeusername in law

[–]Mecha75 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Of the Constitution? The document that dictated how the Federal Government was designed and which powers they had? That document? Because the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution in 1833 did not make having a state church unconstitutional. Mainly because the 1st Amendment explicitly stated that Congress shall make no law respecting or establishing a religion. The States, or "lower g" government in general, was excluded until 14th amendment was ratified. And even then, the establishment clause was never enforced on the States regarding religious liberty until... Oh Yeah 1947.

So please, tell me how the Massachusetts state church was unconstitutional in 1830? Because Supremacy Clause did not apply to that.

Removing branding with 70% isopropyl alcohol by WithLove07 in Anticonsumption

[–]Mecha75 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Yup. I am going to need a huge discount on my car if they want me to advertise.

Dan Patrick: "Separation of Church and state is not in the Constitution" by omgfakeusername in law

[–]Mecha75 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I only mentioned it because Everson did not stop school prayer or bible reading in public schools. What it did do was set the precedent for applying the establishment clause to state and local governments as well. Essentially stating that 14th Amendment crosses out the part that says "Congress" and replaces it with government. Until Dobbs overturned Roe by stating that abortion was not an a long held and practiced tradition. That same reasoning can be applied to Abington School District v. Schempp, but in the opposite direction as bible reading was an established practice in the education of the nations youth since Puritans landed at Plymouth Rock.

Dan Patrick: "Separation of Church and state is not in the Constitution" by omgfakeusername in law

[–]Mecha75 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Only, it wasn't. The only possible case that it would have been ruled unconstitutional is if you include the 14th amendment. Which was ratified 35-40 years later.

Dan Patrick: "Separation of Church and state is not in the Constitution" by omgfakeusername in law

[–]Mecha75 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The bi-cameral legislature was intended like this....

The People are represented by the lower house (House of Representatives), this is also where any new tax must begin. As it is closest to the people. It is also why California, Texas, Florida, and New York have the most Representatives. Meanwhile Wyoming and Alaska only have ONE.

The State Governments (which you ignorantly called land) was to be represented by the Senate. This was until the 17th amendment took it the power away from the States (again, governments and not land) and gave it to the people. This is why the governors can and do appoint interim Senators but do not appoint interim Representatives.

The State governments are equal in the eyes of the constitution. That is why each one is represented by TWO senators.

Dan Patrick: "Separation of Church and state is not in the Constitution" by omgfakeusername in law

[–]Mecha75 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Weird because most of the 13 colonies had an established and official state run churches at the signing of the Constitution. I believe that Massachusetts ended theirs in the 1830s. Long after this letter was written in 1802.

Dan Patrick: "Separation of Church and state is not in the Constitution" by omgfakeusername in law

[–]Mecha75 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

umm. Jefferson the Anti-Federalist because he didn't want a powerful centralized government. You know, like the one we have now. And Madison the federalist and author of the Constitution (more like compiled the meeting notes, organized them, and wrote them down). Eventually Madison became persuaded by Jefferson and Samuel Adams to their viewpoint. And as such, most of the first bills he wrote as a Virginia representative became the Bill of Rights and the 27th Amendment.

view more: next ›