Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[kidcarter8]

It's just not that fucking difficult to stick a line at the bottom saying where you got it from, if you are unwilling to post the link. If Newsmax is the only place you can find where it was said, then you might want to question the source, yourself.


So instead of posting something of interest with a link to Newsmax, I have to take the time to search for the quoted text somewhere else?

You are daft.

An actual fact,  an actual matter of public record,  will be reported in many mainstream news sources.   Putting up an editorial,  disguised as a straight news report,  is bad journalism and should be accepted by no one.   Try Reuters.

Shhhhh...

[Yankguy1]

Kid knows things.

[REDSTATEWARD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoc3F2Bn4DE&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1r8JNddXBt23BGX528m4qNd2LMd8PPmNZhsbJ2JRqDqYNrtc81Za1i7cY

A South Dakota judge ruled that a voter-approved constitutional amendment was... unconstitutional.



The measure was to legalize pot.

To wit:


PIERRE, S.D. — A South Dakota judge on Monday struck down a voter-approved constitutional amendment that legalized recreational marijuana after Gov. Kristi Noem's administration challenged it.

Circuit Judge Christina Klinger ruled the measure approved by voters in November violated the state's requirement that constitutional amendments deal with just one subject and would have created broad changes to state government.

“Amendment A is a revision as it has far-reaching effects on the basic nature of South Dakota’s governmental system,” she wrote in her ruling.

Ergo calling something  a Constitutional  Amendment does not make it one if the alleged Constitutional Ammendment violates the requirements set up in the actual State Constitution on how to amend said Constitution.

[barton]

It's just not that fucking difficult to stick a line at the bottom saying where you got it from, if you are unwilling to post the link. If Newsmax is the only place you can find where it was said, then you might want to question the source, yourself.


So instead of posting something of interest with a link to Newsmax, I have to take the time to search for the quoted text somewhere else?

You are daft.

An actual fact,  an actual matter of public record,  will be reported in many mainstream news sources.   Putting up an editorial,  disguised as a straight news report,  is bad journalism and should be accepted by no one.   Try Reuters.

Shhhhh...

Suck


My

[LarryBnDC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoc3F2Bn4DE&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1r8JNddXBt23BGX528m4qNd2LMd8PPmNZhsbJ2JRqDqYNrtc81Za1i7cY

A South Dakota judge ruled that a voter-approved constitutional amendment was... unconstitutional.



The measure was to legalize pot.

To wit:


PIERRE, S.D. — A South Dakota judge on Monday struck down a voter-approved constitutional amendment that legalized recreational marijuana after Gov. Kristi Noem's administration challenged it.

Circuit Judge Christina Klinger ruled the measure approved by voters in November violated the state's requirement that constitutional amendments deal with just one subject and would have created broad changes to state government.

“Amendment A is a revision as it has far-reaching effects on the basic nature of South Dakota’s governmental system,” she wrote in her ruling.

Ergo calling something  a Constitutional  Amendment does not make it one if the alleged Constitutional Ammendment violates the requirements set up in the actual State Constitution on how to amend said Constitution.

LOL

[barton]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoc3F2Bn4DE&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1r8JNddXBt23BGX528m4qNd2LMd8PPmNZhsbJ2JRqDqYNrtc81Za1i7cY

A South Dakota judge ruled that a voter-approved constitutional amendment was... unconstitutional.



The measure was to legalize pot.

To wit:


PIERRE, S.D. — A South Dakota judge on Monday struck down a voter-approved constitutional amendment that legalized recreational marijuana after Gov. Kristi Noem's administration challenged it.

Circuit Judge Christina Klinger ruled the measure approved by voters in November violated the state's requirement that constitutional amendments deal with just one subject and would have created broad changes to state government.

“Amendment A is a revision as it has far-reaching effects on the basic nature of South Dakota’s governmental system,” she wrote in her ruling.

Ergo calling something  a Constitutional  Amendment does not make it one if the alleged Constitutional Ammendment violates the requirements set up in the actual State Constitution on how to amend said Constitution.

Klinger is a Noem-appointed judge.   Since it is Noem who is leading the campaign against the voter mandated legalization,  Klinger should have recused herself.   The technical nitpicks as to whether it's a proper amendment shouldn't obscure the reality that 54% of Soith Dakotans voted to legalize pot.   

[kidcarter8]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoc3F2Bn4DE&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1r8JNddXBt23BGX528m4qNd2LMd8PPmNZhsbJ2JRqDqYNrtc81Za1i7cY

A South Dakota judge ruled that a voter-approved constitutional amendment was... unconstitutional.



The measure was to legalize pot.

To wit:


PIERRE, S.D. — A South Dakota judge on Monday struck down a voter-approved constitutional amendment that legalized recreational marijuana after Gov. Kristi Noem's administration challenged it.

Circuit Judge Christina Klinger ruled the measure approved by voters in November violated the state's requirement that constitutional amendments deal with just one subject and would have created broad changes to state government.

“Amendment A is a revision as it has far-reaching effects on the basic nature of South Dakota’s governmental system,” she wrote in her ruling.

Ergo calling something  a Constitutional  Amendment does not make it one if the alleged Constitutional Ammendment violates the requirements set up in the actual State Constitution on how to amend said Constitution.

Gateway drug.

[LarryBnDC]

It's just not that fucking difficult to stick a line at the bottom saying where you got it from, if you are unwilling to post the link. If Newsmax is the only place you can find where it was said, then you might want to question the source, yourself.


So instead of posting something of interest with a link to Newsmax, I have to take the time to search for the quoted text somewhere else?

You are daft.

An actual fact,  an actual matter of public record,  will be reported in many mainstream news sources.   Putting up an editorial,  disguised as a straight news report,  is bad journalism and should be accepted by no one.   Try Reuters.

Shhhhh...

Suck


My

nicely done!

[REDSTATEWARD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoc3F2Bn4DE&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1r8JNddXBt23BGX528m4qNd2LMd8PPmNZhsbJ2JRqDqYNrtc81Za1i7cY

A South Dakota judge ruled that a voter-approved constitutional amendment was... unconstitutional.



The measure was to legalize pot.

To wit:


PIERRE, S.D. — A South Dakota judge on Monday struck down a voter-approved constitutional amendment that legalized recreational marijuana after Gov. Kristi Noem's administration challenged it.

Circuit Judge Christina Klinger ruled the measure approved by voters in November violated the state's requirement that constitutional amendments deal with just one subject and would have created broad changes to state government.

“Amendment A is a revision as it has far-reaching effects on the basic nature of South Dakota’s governmental system,” she wrote in her ruling.

Ergo calling something  a Constitutional  Amendment does not make it one if the alleged Constitutional Ammendment violates the requirements set up in the actual State Constitution on how to amend said Constitution.

Klinger is a Noem-appointed judge.   

As required by the South Dakota Constitution when vacancies occur. Only the Governor can fill vacancies for elected judges.

   Since it is Noem who is leading the campaign against the voter mandated legalization,  Klinger should have recused herself.   

You can’t be serious.

The technical nitpicks as to whether it's a proper amendment shouldn't obscure the reality that 54% of Soith Dakotans voted to legalize pot.

Obviously the wording of the amendment was more than a technical “ nitpick” to the Judge.

[Kam]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoc3F2Bn4DE&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1r8JNddXBt23BGX528m4qNd2LMd8PPmNZhsbJ2JRqDqYNrtc81Za1i7cY

A South Dakota judge ruled that a voter-approved constitutional amendment was... unconstitutional.



The measure was to legalize pot.

To wit:


PIERRE, S.D. — A South Dakota judge on Monday struck down a voter-approved constitutional amendment that legalized recreational marijuana after Gov. Kristi Noem's administration challenged it.

Circuit Judge Christina Klinger ruled the measure approved by voters in November violated the state's requirement that constitutional amendments deal with just one subject and would have created broad changes to state government.

“Amendment A is a revision as it has far-reaching effects on the basic nature of South Dakota’s governmental system,” she wrote in her ruling.

Ergo calling something  a Constitutional  Amendment does not make it one if the alleged Constitutional Ammendment violates the requirements set up in the actual State Constitution on how to amend said Constitution.

Klinger is a Noem-appointed judge.   

As required by the South Dakota Constitution when vacancies occur. Only the Governor can fill vacancies for elected judges.

   Since it is Noem who is leading the campaign against the voter mandated legalization,  Klinger should have recused herself.   

You can’t be serious.

The technical nitpicks as to whether it's a proper amendment shouldn't obscure the reality that 54% of Soith Dakotans voted to legalize pot.

Obviously the wording of the amendment was more than a technical “ nitpick” to the Judge.

Why do you hate democracy?

[Hamilton Samuels]

If this was a court of law the defense team would be falling over themselves to get a plea deal.

It could have been a court of law, if the Dems were willing to wait until they had gathered all of the evidence linking Trump and his campaign to the Proud Boys and the other far right groups.

But...well, you know.

[FlyingVProd]

Milan to Paris New Train in Just 6 hours 

https://www.this-is-italy.com/milan-to-paris-new-train-in-just-6-hours/

====

There needs to be a high speed train between Las Vegas and Anaheim, if you go one way you go to Vegas, and if you go the other way you go to Disneyland. It would be great.

There also needs to be a high speed train from Lancaster, California, to Los Angeles. That should have been the first part of the California high speed rail which was built.

And on the East Coast, there can be a high speed train between New York City and Washington DC.

Salute,

Tony V.

[REDSTATEWARD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoc3F2Bn4DE&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1r8JNddXBt23BGX528m4qNd2LMd8PPmNZhsbJ2JRqDqYNrtc81Za1i7cY

A South Dakota judge ruled that a voter-approved constitutional amendment was... unconstitutional.



The measure was to legalize pot.

To wit:


PIERRE, S.D. — A South Dakota judge on Monday struck down a voter-approved constitutional amendment that legalized recreational marijuana after Gov. Kristi Noem's administration challenged it.

Circuit Judge Christina Klinger ruled the measure approved by voters in November violated the state's requirement that constitutional amendments deal with just one subject and would have created broad changes to state government.

“Amendment A is a revision as it has far-reaching effects on the basic nature of South Dakota’s governmental system,” she wrote in her ruling.

Ergo calling something  a Constitutional  Amendment does not make it one if the alleged Constitutional Ammendment violates the requirements set up in the actual State Constitution on how to amend said Constitution.

Klinger is a Noem-appointed judge.   

As required by the South Dakota Constitution when vacancies occur. Only the Governor can fill vacancies for elected judges.

   Since it is Noem who is leading the campaign against the voter mandated legalization,  Klinger should have recused herself.   

You can’t be serious.

The technical nitpicks as to whether it's a proper amendment shouldn't obscure the reality that 54% of Soith Dakotans voted to legalize pot.

Obviously the wording of the amendment was more than a technical “ nitpick” to the Judge.

Why do you hate democracy?

Thats a question for you, not me.

[josh]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoc3F2Bn4DE&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1r8JNddXBt23BGX528m4qNd2LMd8PPmNZhsbJ2JRqDqYNrtc81Za1i7cY

A South Dakota judge ruled that a voter-approved constitutional amendment was... unconstitutional.



The measure was to legalize pot.

To wit:


PIERRE, S.D. — A South Dakota judge on Monday struck down a voter-approved constitutional amendment that legalized recreational marijuana after Gov. Kristi Noem's administration challenged it.

Circuit Judge Christina Klinger ruled the measure approved by voters in November violated the state's requirement that constitutional amendments deal with just one subject and would have created broad changes to state government.

“Amendment A is a revision as it has far-reaching effects on the basic nature of South Dakota’s governmental system,” she wrote in her ruling.

Ergo calling something  a Constitutional  Amendment does not make it one if the alleged Constitutional Ammendment violates the requirements set up in the actual State Constitution on how to amend said Constitution.

Gateway drug.

Says no research anywhere!

[LarryBnDC]

If this was a court of law the defense team would be falling over themselves to get a plea deal.

It could have been a court of law, if the Dems were willing to wait until they had gathered all of the evidence linking Trump and his campaign to the Proud Boys and the other far right groups.

But...well, you know.

That take smells like R. Kelly's sheets.