Maybe you would be happier living in Canada. The Brits that founded it probably never had slaves.

They were paying for the coverage, were they not? Nothing prevents the employees from getting whatever medical thing they want, they just have to pay for it. Nothing slippery about it.

Saw an online headline just now: 'Trump to issue executive order barring political discussion in the 2p2 SSLHE LC thread.'

Thanks, Trump!

Hand that sent me home tonight:

Open black aces in MP, like 4 ways to the flop QQ5. Nitty blind donks, I call, heads up. Turn Q, blind checks, I bet, blind calls. River A, bet/call.

I am so bad.

I probably would be. Looked into moving there 10 years ago. It's not easy, I didn't qualify.

One of the best threads in 2p2 history is about having an over pair that bets into Trup QQ, look it up.

The beginning of the end. Amazing we made it this long with the federal government ****ting all over the constitution.

Whether or not this is true from a Constitutional standpoint, it's antithetical to what makes America greater than Europe. In Europe, you have all these individual "states" who want to protect their individual cultures and borders. A crisis like Greece happens and nobody wants to learn a new language or move to a different place so it just festers like an open wound; Sanofi prides itself as a French company and decides it's going to look for the best French CEO instead of the best CEO.

America was a place where people agreed to disagree; "crossing the aisle" was a point of pride rather than an insult. Now you have these protestors holding up "Not My President" signs and a President who doesn't even pretend to disagree, and Republicans who vote with Democrats get their inboxes filled with beta cuck memes. Some idiot Californians want to secede because apparently it's inconceivable that we lost an election - don't laugh yet, Texas did the same thing in 2008.

The whole idea that the states are just going to do their own thing and we'll have a big heterogeneous mix of laws and traditions and somehow still feel enough connection to stick together through a real tragedy didn't work in Europe, and it won't work here.

If you can't get married in one state and have it be valid in all 50, or can't incorporate your business in one state and run operations in all 50, or any other number of fundamental things that we need to put together a basic life, then we might as well just break up into 50 countries.

I think you played it fine. This is like the definition of WA/WB.

Just let pope direct him to the thread.

Yeah that's proving tough to search for haha.

Here it is, one of the GOAT:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...people-838201/

I honestly couldn't find because you all are so prone to typos and I thought Trup was one of them.

Only half way through the thread buts it's gold so far.

lmao A+.

Why have a judiciary at all, then?

To protect us against the monarch and aid in maintaining a civil society.

For example: Small claims court certainly stops a great deal of violence bec ppl who might throw bricks thru a business's window can have their day in court instead.

To judge.....

I'm arrested for refusing to quarter soldiers in my house. the judge should say the law says you don't have to quarter soldiers without consent....

The judge shouldn't say the law says you don't have to quarter soldiers but I'm pretty sure we all know the law makers really meant that also means you the right to get abortions (which is basically what happened).

i've always been curious - how do strict constructionists (or similar viewpoints - sorry if i'm getting the terminology wrong) account for all the issues that didn't exist back in the day - abortion rights, net neutrality, transgender issues, global warming/co2 emissions, etc?

or, what about for all the stuff where our collective viewpoint (social morality?) has shifted a lot - slavery isn't acceptable any more, women and minorities and gays and everyone else are (hopefully) treated and viewed a lot better than they used to be, etc?

or in other words, how can a strict constructionist viewpoint deal with all of this 'new' stuff? and, isn't the framers' context important? iirc they were all middle/upper class white guys during a time when slavery was accepted, women didn't have many rights, etc. a primary concern for these guys was cementing their new independence from great britain. so, it makes sense that they wrote about what concerned them, and not what didn't.

but these days, our society/context are different and different morals and issues are predominant, so maybe rigidly following a document written for and by people from another time isn't optimal?

hopefully this makes sense - curious as to what you think personally and what the constructionist position would be on all of this. i enjoy history and politics and logic but don't have any legal background or deep understanding of this kinda stuff.

slavery was the main issue/cause of the civil war - not states' rights

[QUOTE=Jon_locke;51731973]To judge.....

I'm arrested for refusing to quarter soldiers in my house. the judge should say the law says you don't have to quarter soldiers without consent....

The judge shouldn't say the law says you don't have to quarter soldiers but I'm pretty sure we all know the law makers really meant that also means you the right to get abortions (which is basically what happened

I'm a lawyer. Used to work for Doj. Son of staunch republicans. Self admitted huge bleeding heart liberal bordering on the liberatian. I typo as much as Jon. I like states rights and think I understand the concept. But thecehole idea of federal law is that there exist some unalienable rights guaranteed to our citizens that can't be legislated away by the states. Jury trial. Gun ownership (aiya). And s broad group of rights which Scalia himself would call privacy, which should certainly include who you can **** and marry without penalty. These rights don't need to be written in exact wording in 1776 for it to be s good idea for them to apply to all humans in the country.



The letter bettaruan.

This guy is being super annoying, every hand has to ask for a count of everyone's stack. Meanwhile, he keeps his chips in short uneven stacks and blocks them with his arms. So he wins a pot and then this happens.

I raise EP, he coldcalls. I cbet and he asks for a count. My chips are visible but I point out I have two stacks and some change. "Two hundred and ... well, I cover you."

"You don't know what I have," he snaps.

"Are you TRYING to hide your chips?" I ask incredulously.

"You don't know what I have," he repeats defiantly.

"You went all in last hand with 82, doubled up is 164, plus 2 or 3 limpers, plus the blinds minus the rake and tip, you've got ... either 174 or 177."

Silence.

So the hand plays out uneventfully but he's clearly on tilt, as it happens he loses a pot, then I stack him JJ > AK AIPF then stack him again like 2 hands later 99 > 87 on 872 when a 9 binks the turn.

He's done, offers a curt "nice hand" and I offer the Gentleman's Table Pat and a polite "good night."

Then some yahoo from the other end of the table yells, "I KNOW HOW MUCH YOU HAVE NOW BITCH!"

Classy.

That's California poker.

That's the most awesome thing I've ever heard.

Funny story from last week.

Analyst has been running super bad and is down a few racks and is in the BB. I open OTB, he defends with J8 and has 2.5bb left.

Flop: Q95 (2 players, 4sb)
Analyst checks, I bet, Analyst calls.

Turn 6 (2 players, 3bb)
Analyst checks, I bet, Analyst calls. He has 1bb remaining.

River: 7!
Analyst triumphantly performs the donk of death.

I look at his chips and notice he has none left, and then say "RAISE" and don't put out any chips. He tables his hand. I look at his cards and say "RAISE" again. The entire table erupts in laughter.

I'm only a douchebag to my friends.

I've never started a hand w/o enough chips to play out a hand if I hit (I'd leave if I was that short and couldn't reload) and I wouldn't have thought anybody on here would either.

Is it ok to wait for the button to top up in that spot? Would that be the best choice?

Was extremely proud of myself for leaving when I rattled off 2.2 of the three racks I brought with me for this very reason the other day.