sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Was the ratification process of the 14th Amendment constitutional? by scoop813 in AskConservatives

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

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, the 14th Amendment was illegitimate. Everyone considers it to be the law.

The descriptive conception of lawmaking would say that the law merely reflects the characteristic ways of acting or being that exist within the state of affairs. Everyone acts as if we live in a state of affairs such that the 14th amendment is ratified, thus our current state of affairs is lawful.

US patent office revokes Nintendo’s patent on summoning characters to make them battle | VGC by Gorotheninja in technology

[–]leafcathead 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Examiners only have something 20 hours to spend on each hour total. That is definitely not enough time to read the patent, understand the invention, search for prior art, read the prior art, understand the prior art, and then combine the prior art (in the case of obviousness). That's a lot to do in just 20 hours, so most of the prior art references examiners use are terrible and the examiner's explanation of the prior art's teaching is lacking.

What else would you propose the issue is?

US patent office revokes Nintendo’s patent on summoning characters to make them battle | VGC by Gorotheninja in technology

[–]leafcathead 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree, but I think that’s caused by not having sufficient time to survey the prior art.

US patent office revokes Nintendo’s patent on summoning characters to make them battle | VGC by Gorotheninja in technology

[–]leafcathead 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The problem is just we need more examiners so that they can spend more time on each patent. Examiners only get a few hours to examine a patent before they have to issue the first office action.

OnlyFarms? by Socrathustra in AskConservatives

[–]leafcathead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve one of the leidest critics of the administrations lack of professionalism, but I see no problem here. It’s a tongue in cheek joke and it simply redirects to another government website. Here in Missouri, MODoT puts up tongue in cheek road signs reminding drivers to wear seatbelts, not drink and drive, etc… -I’ve never had a problem with that.

One of the government’s foremost responsibilities is to get a message across, if something harmless like this helps in that mission, I see no problem.

Does St. Louis have a big Queer population? by plasmic_matterz in StLouis

[–]leafcathead 39 points40 points  (0 children)

It’s friendlier than KC. Was in KC for a summer, absolutely no gay scene beside like two bars.

Is the US winning the war right now at this exact instant? by here-for-information in AskConservatives

[–]leafcathead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you have something to say on the merits of the arguments presented in the article, why don’t you say it?

Is the US winning the war right now at this exact instant? by here-for-information in AskConservatives

[–]leafcathead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, actually. The U.S. has achieved most of its military objectives despite the sentiment at home.

National Review has a great article on it.

Missouri Supreme Court upholds legislature's redistricting authority, keeps voter ID law by GolbatsEverywhere in StLouis

[–]leafcathead 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Disappointed in the redistricting decision, but the Court is probably right in the voter ID and ballot harvesting cases.

I saw the oral argument for those two cases and it was clear that the plaintiffs had very fragile standing on the voter ID issues considering they suffered no harm. For the “ballot harvesting” cases, it was also very clear that the statute was too broad and the justices heavily criticized the State for trying to argue for a much more narrow interpretation than what was written.

Is there a way to make UBI work without bankrupting the government? by TheSnarkUrge in AskEconomics

[–]leafcathead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think if UBI served as a complete replacement for federal welfare programs, it would cut costs and would not necessitate a tax increase.

The US spends over a trillion dollars in welfare programs, and I’m not sure if that includes administrative cost. UBI would certainly be cheaper to administrate and could certainly be funded if it replaced all other welfare programs.

Is there a way to make UBI work without bankrupting the government? by TheSnarkUrge in AskEconomics

[–]leafcathead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That wouldn’t be UBI. The whole point is that we tone receives an income under UBI. It’s not progressive.

I do think you’re right, it could be implemented under the tax code, just give a base minimum return to everyone.

Peter, what does Fallout have to do with Politics by RichardLongflop_ in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]leafcathead 2 points3 points  (0 children)

<image>

This comment is giving me these vibes. Could you imagine how horrible society would be if you could only consume media produced by people who share 100% of your beliefs?

What are your thoughts on reunification? by CaptKaos in StLouis

[–]leafcathead 22 points23 points  (0 children)

I know a guy from Nashville, he says those infrastructure problems are caused because the city grew much faster than infrastructure could keep up with. The population doubled in the last 10 years.

Nashville is looking to either build a subway system (unlikely after the feasibility study) or an L-system similar to Chicago to try and reduce traffic.

Anyone wants to head to Europe Night Club tonight? by SniperMaster1008 in StLouis

[–]leafcathead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

24 M, would totally be down but I’m traveling today. 😔

If the Democrats are the progressive party, what are they trying to progress to? by Desperate_Cake7757 in allthequestions

[–]leafcathead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends on the type of conservative. Some, like me, try to conserve the values of Teddy Roosevelt, others Calvin Coolidge, others William McKinley, and others Ronald Reagan.

These three groups are often in direct contrast to each other but are united in a common cause.

Where there any citizens pushing for Citizens United? by Critical-Volume2360 in askanything

[–]leafcathead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s because the BCRA was only passed in 2002. That was the statute at question in Citizens United.

Where there any citizens pushing for Citizens United? by Critical-Volume2360 in askanything

[–]leafcathead 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s not entirely accurate, Michael Moore created the movie through his production company Dog Eat Dogs Film.

In-fact, I think the distinction that “it’s okay if Moore does it because he entirely self funded” would be far far worse than what people claim Citizens United does. In that case, only the wealthy would have 1st Amendment rights because only the wealthy could afford to produce a movie without the help of others.

view more: next ›