Just now, Phillyterp85 said:

That didn’t answer my question. Can a person file suit against the government over a bill that is being voted on and hasn’t been approved yet? Yes or no.

No, and it's not analogous to an EO, nor should the verbiage of this EO be framed as "guidance" when it explicitly states the provision must forbid the delivery of ballots if the voter is not on a state provided list. You can keep going round and round on this, but you'll look no less foolish than you did when you were endlessly queefing about Fauci a couple weeks ago. Something happened to you and I don't know what it is, but I'm not indulging you any further.

5 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

No, and it's not analogous to an EO, nor should the verbiage of this EO be framed as "guidance" when it explicitly states the provision must forbid the delivery of ballots if the voter is not on a state provided list. You can keep going round and round on this, but you'll look no less foolish than you did when you were endlessly queefing about Fauci a couple weeks ago. Something happened to you and I don't know what it is, but I'm not indulging you any further.

It absolutely is analogous. The EO instructed a federal agency to publish a new regulation. So when the regulation was published, then people had standing to sue as there was a provision to base their claim off of. Prior to that, all they had was what they predicted the provision would say.

No different than congress drafting a bill. Even though we know what the bill might say because we can all see the text of the bill while it’s being voted on, you can’t claim harm until the bill is actually approved. Up until then all you have is what you THINK the final regulation will say.

17 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Something happened to you and I don't know what it is, but I'm not indulging you any further.

Why, because I'm able to put aside my intense dislike of our president and acknowledge that even though I think he's a corrupt detestable moron, he and his administration is still afforded proper judicial process, which includes having to actually publish a provision before they can be sued over the contents of that provision. lol, yes how crazy and wild of me to want proper judicial process followed in this country, even for people and things that I dislike.

4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Why, because I'm able to put aside my intense dislike of our president and acknowledge that even though I think he's a corrupt detestable moron, he and his administration is still afforded proper judicial process, which includes having to actually publish a provision before they can be sued over the contents of that provision. lol, yes how crazy and wild of me to want proper judicial process followed in this country, even for people and things that I dislike.

Funny how you didn't seem to apply this same mindset when you went on a multi page rant about Fauci taking the fifth.

38 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Funny how you didn't seem to apply this same mindset when you went on a multi page rant about Fauci taking the fifth.

lol what are you talking about? Nowhere did I say it was illegal for him to take the 5th. Nowhere did I say that he wasn't allowed to take the 5th. And you're asking what happened to me? lol ok............

6 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

lol what are you talking about? Nowhere did I say it was illegal for him to take the 5th. Nowhere did I say that he wasn't allowed to take the 5th. And you're asking what happened to me? lol ok............

Yeah man, you really set aside your dislike for him when you kept trying to falsely pin vaccine skepticism on him repeatedly.

6 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yeah man, you really set aside your dislike for him when you kept trying to falsely pin vaccine skepticism on him repeatedly.

If I recall, I acknowledged that it wasn't Fauci who made the statement that vaccinated don't transmit the virus and correctly attributed it to the right person. What Dr. Fauci has to do with this discussion, I have no idea. And again, you're the one asking me "what happened to you?" and accusing me of going round and round....

3 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

My neighbor’s son’s league has some funny punishments for last place. They did one where the loser had to sign up for an open mic comedy night and do standup reading jokes that the other owners wrote.

But then they also do ones that are just downright gross and terrible. Like the 2-4-6-8 challenge. You have 90 minutes to run 2 miles, eat 4 slices of pizza, drink 6 beers, and eat 8 donuts. I don’t think it’s even possible to do it I think the guy just ends up throwing up at some point.

That doesn't sound THAT bad. It takes me about 22-24 minutes to jog 2 miles. So even if I go slow that is still a little over an hour to do the rest. Eat 3 donuts before hand, jog, then consume the rest.

Now I am getting old and my days of eating THAT much is long behind me (2 slices is the max), but if I was forced to push it, sure, it's doable. I assume we are talking regular new york style with no toppings, not Sicilian or deep dish with everything on it.

15 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yeah man, you really set aside your dislike for him when you kept trying to falsely pin vaccine skepticism on him repeatedly.

Me: A plaintiff can't claim they were harmed by a provision that hasn't been written yet. They won't have standing. The provision has to be published first, then they can file suit and in that suit cite which parts of the provision they feel are in violation of the constitution. Until the provision is published, all they have to go off on is what they think the language of the provision will be. So they won't have standing to claim harm since the provision hasn't even been published yet

WGB: Yeah but you were wrong in the Dr. Fauci thread and were too hard on him and tried to blame him for things that I don't think he should be blamed for!

lol seriously what is happening right now?

18 minutes ago, paco said:

That doesn't sound THAT bad. It takes me about 22-24 minutes to jog 2 miles. So even if I go slow that is still a little over an hour to do the rest. Eat 3 donuts before hand, jog, then consume the rest.

Now I am getting old and my days of eating THAT much is long behind me (2 slices is the max), but if I was forced to push it, sure, it's doable. I assume we are talking regular new york style with no toppings, not Sicilian or deep dish with everything on it.

I mean, that's a LOT of food, lol. 4 pieces of pizza is hard enough, but then 8 donuts and 6 beers as well?

16 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

man, thank god they stopped the biden crime syndicate.

56 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

lol seriously what is happening right now?

You acting like a hypocrite? Yeah, it is

Love this.

11 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

You acting like a hypocrite? Yeah, it is

lol how am I acting like a hypocrite? Understanding judicial process makes me a hypocrite now? lol ok....And you accuse ME of posting while drinking?

Come on Canada you know what to do

Just now, Phillyterp85 said:

lol how am I acting like a hypocrite? And you accuse ME of posting while drinking?

You're claiming you set aside your dislike of a person for Trump when discussing this EO, but somehow you didn't choose to do the same in the Fauci conversation a couple weeks ago when you went on a huge rant that started with asking why he didn't defy a subpoena if he was just planning on pleading the fifth. The only thing you've been consistent with in both cases is your ability to play dumb. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

8 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

You're claiming you set aside your dislike of a person for Trump when discussing this EO, but somehow you didn't choose to do the same in the Fauci conversation a couple weeks ago when you went on a huge rant that started with asking why he didn't defy a subpoena if he was just planning on pleading the fifth. The only thing you've been consistent with in both cases is your ability to play dumb. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

lol. So basically because I didn't agree with you on how Fauci handled himself in his hearing with Congress, I'm a hypocrite.....ok................. And you think I'm the one doing schtick here? Nowhere did I claim that Fauci didn't have the right to plead the 5th. Nowhere did I say it would be illegal for him to plead the 5th. You might be right that it was the smart play for him to plead the 5th if the congressmen asking questions were just trying to run a dog and pony show and the goal wasn't to actually have a legitimate hearing but instead were just trying to play some dumb gotcha game with him. I didn't like the way he came across and thought it was a waste of time.

What on god's green earth does that have to do with this discussion which is just a fact based discussion on understanding how the judicial process works in this country??? Apparently you think a state can claim they were harmed by a provision that hasn't been written yet, which goes against tons of legal precedence. So when President Shapiro writes an EO instructing the DOJ to draft a provision related to handgun regulation, I guess I'll look forward to you supporting the NRA being able to sue the government and get an injunction before provision is even written.

Also, not that it even really matters, but I don't dislike Dr. Fauci. There might be some things he did I didn't like, but I don't dislike him as a person. He seems like a good person by all accounts.

31 minutes ago, DBW said:

They have a chance to do the funniest thing...

37 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

They have a chance to do the funniest thing...

Lake Obama-Biden has a nice ring to it as well.

The tarps blew off in the wind and we can see his name is still on it

If there is a God, he took Dolly for a good reason and her boobs are gonna rain hell on trump lagoon.