Capco

I can at least respect this line of thinking even if I don't agree with it, because it exemplifies your ideological consistency. And that's something I appreciate. The rest of your post honestly puzzles me, apart from your story of overcoming adversity. And this too is something I appreciate and respect. I'll take you at your word and congratulate you on a job well done. I happen to be a big believer in government as long as it is a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," to quote Lincoln. Just curious: what do you think of Lincoln as a president? He is usually ranked in the top 3, and of those rankings he typically resides in the top 2 (the other being Washington). Likewise, the other top 3 president is usually considered to be FDR. What do you think of FDR as a president?

The Declaration of Independence can at best be used as a persuasive authority. And honestly I'm not even sure how persuasive it would be. Granted, I haven't taken Constitutional Law yet, but none of the SCOTUS cases I have read so far have cited the Declaration. Always happy to inform. I am well aware of these quotes you speak of, and believe it or not they resonate greatly with me as well. But they are in no way legally binding. I've already addressed this I believe.

The Declaration of Independence is not a binding legal document. It's a letter sent to King George III. Also, there is nothing about due process in the Declaration. The Due Process Clause resides in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. It's amazing how much I've already learned in law school and I still have 2 years to go. You genuinely think you know what you're talking about... but you don't.

Just because views are different does not automatically make them co-equal. If someone starts talking about bringing back slavery, am I supposed to treat that view just like any other? I'm not comparing your views to slavery. I'm only trying to highlight the inherent falsehood of treating all views as equal. That's a bunch of malarkey.

I'm a chemical engineer that is attending law school. The only one underestimating the other's intelligence in this conversation is you. You might want to take your own advice about judging people's intelligence on the internet. HOWEVER, I don't doubt that you're an accomplished individual with a wealth of wisdom that I could learn a thing or two from. I'm sorry if I've come across as crass. Maybe we'll have some more productive chats than this one in the future. Good night!

The purpose for rights is not the same as the rights themselves. I'll say it one more time: There is no right to intimidating others with violence or to overthrow the government. There is a right to bear arms. A "4.0 College Grad" (you're not supposed to capitalize those words, btw) doesn't know the difference between there and their? Which college did you attend again?

None of those quotes are rights nor do they signify any rights, either by statutory law or by the Constitution itself. Do you even know what a "right" is?

Intimidation with violence is not a Second Amendment right, or any kind of right whatsoever. There is also no prescribed right to overthrow the government, either. You have some serious blinders on your head there bud.

You can smell the fear from the right in this thread. The excuses are already rolling in. Y'all are a bunch of jokes lol. Biden/Harris 2020!

At this point, I'm all for packing the Court if they even sniff Roe v. Wade. Add 6 Justices along party line votes if you have to. As long as they don't start undoing decades of precedent I'm okay with a 6-3 Court for now. But if they do, it's game on. That's why the Senate is going to be so critical in this election. I have a feeling the Republicans will back off on any over-the-top agenda via the SCOTUS if they lose the Senate.

When you make comments like you did, I take everything you say about brains with a massive grain of salt.

Lol. Is everyone in Rochester at batshit crazy as you?

Come on dude. I know it's Friday night and we all like to get a little bit drunk, but surely one who is this confident in their work would know the difference between sited and cited, right? I literally wrote a 1750 word Torts midterm not 4 days ago in 2 hours and 15 minutes. 3500 words is nothing.

3500 words? That's it? Hahahahaha. The fact that you think that makes you a credible source in any sense is laughable at best.

🤦‍♂️

Riveting commentary. Highly persuasive. You've sold me on your point, even if I have no idea what it is. /s

Obvious holding.

Special teams is playing well for us.

Maybe now he'll get the appreciation he deserves? Hmmm... naaaaahhhhh.

I don't think enough people fully understand how much this one factor alone impacts just about everything else you listed. If you have 5 minutes, please watch this. It's a snippet from the documentary "Inequality for All" and articulates my points better than I can. "The wider the prosperity => the more people were included in that prosperity => the more that prosperity generated even more prosperity." And compare that with the following 35 second clip from the same documentary that illustrates the opposite approach. When inequality grows, wages stagnate. Stagnant wages means workers buy less than they would have with rising wages. When workers buy less, companies downsize or cease growing. When companies downsize and wages stagnate, tax revenues decrease. Lower tax revenues means government must cut programs. Many of these programs help lift people out of poverty, like funding of public education. A lower educated workforce in a 21st century industrialized economy means there are fewer employable persons, and unemployment rises. With even fewer people paying taxes and more people drawing on government programs because of higher poverty rates, deficits grow. Higher deficits means the government can do even less to combat inequality and increase wages.

There's just no hope with you.

Hi, RealKayAdams. This is the original piece from June 26, 2019: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html I agree that the main weakness of many left leaning candidates is personality weakness and strategy blunders rather than policies. It amazes me sometimes how they can't articulate what are genuinely good ideas. I think I'm very close to where you reside on the spectrum. I like many Marxist principles but I'm not so far to the left (or so far authoritarian) that I would call myself a Marxist-Leninist. I think in the (very) long run communism of some form will prevail, if only out of necessity. Capitalism is fascinating in that it has sown the seeds of its very own destruction; it's only a matter of time. I'd like to write more but I have a Contracts midterm exam tomorrow that I need to study for. I look forward to reading more of your posts! EDIT: I'm Polish too!

Nice job by Dodson shedding that block.

Lol Knox looked nasty on that run after catch.

Edmunds looked totally out of position on that TD run.