If watching TV at home vs watching it in a bar or something was 1/6th of the economy and you not doing so costs the government and taxpayers a ton of money, I would definitely consider regulating this.
"It's really expensive not to" is not a Constitutional justification for regulating something.
9 out of every 10 pro-mandate arguments devolve to "but we really want to do it! A lot!"
The law requiring people to buy a gun was only for those in the militia. Also, I was talking about the SCOTUS argument today, not circuit court opinions. Of course I'm speculating a bit, because I haven't heard the arguments yet - just read some available reviews.
That second quote is gold to me - from what I've read, one of the keys to getting the mandate declared unconstitutional is convincing justice Kennedy that there's no limiting principle. Anyhow, I hope the Justices don't find this logic persuasive - I want the government to be Constitutionally constrained, not just constrained by common sense or benevolent attitudes.
And every able-bodied male was considered part of the militia. If Congress said "everyone is part of the militia and every member of the militia must purchase health insurance" this would change your opinion? If Congress said "everyone is part of the militia and in order to get in shape must join a gym" does that make a go-to-the-gym requirement go from Unconstitutional to Constitutional?
Sweet! My buddy with the blood clot that was preventing him from drinking forever apparently no longer has said blood clot!
We can all get shitfaced!! YEAY!
Conveniently comes with it's own reason to celebrate, too!
Super convenient because my bachelor party is this weekend. I was worried that he would have to watch us being stupid.
Oh, that's awesome. Perfect timing! Report back to us re: your shenigans, and so that we can ensure that you survived.
Edit: Also so that we have documentation of what you did.
It's going to be pretty low key to be honest.
Heading to AC, doing some gambling, obligatory club that plays "shots" and charges $300+ for a bottle of $30 liguor, and having two nice dinners.
If watching TV at home vs watching it in a bar or something was 1/6th of the economy and you not doing so costs the government and taxpayers a ton of money, I would definitely consider regulating this.
"It's really expensive not to" is not a Constitutional justification for regulating something.
9 out of every 10 pro-mandate arguments devolve to "but we really want to do it! A lot!"
that is total disengenious bullshit spool. Seriously, this is full on partisan-shill slobbering Rupert Murdocks shriveled impotent cock.
RiemannLives on
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Sweet! My buddy with the blood clot that was preventing him from drinking forever apparently no longer has said blood clot!
We can all get shitfaced!! YEAY!
Conveniently comes with it's own reason to celebrate, too!
Super convenient because my bachelor party is this weekend. I was worried that he would have to watch us being stupid.
Oh, that's awesome. Perfect timing! Report back to us re: your shenigans, and so that we can ensure that you survived.
Edit: Also so that we have documentation of what you did.
It's going to be pretty low key to be honest.
Heading to AC, doing some gambling, obligatory club that plays "shots" and charges $300+ for a bottle of $30 liguor, and having two nice dinners.
No strippers, hookers, or midgets.
Sounds like good times, even without the midgets
I am only privy to the details of mine up to 10pm, worryingly.
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
Sweet! My buddy with the blood clot that was preventing him from drinking forever apparently no longer has said blood clot!
We can all get shitfaced!! YEAY!
Conveniently comes with it's own reason to celebrate, too!
Super convenient because my bachelor party is this weekend. I was worried that he would have to watch us being stupid.
Oh, that's awesome. Perfect timing! Report back to us re: your shenigans, and so that we can ensure that you survived.
Edit: Also so that we have documentation of what you did.
It's going to be pretty low key to be honest.
Heading to AC, doing some gambling, obligatory club that plays "shots" and charges $300+ for a bottle of $30 liguor, and having two nice dinners.
The law requiring people to buy a gun was only for those in the militia. Also, I was talking about the SCOTUS argument today, not circuit court opinions. Of course I'm speculating a bit, because I haven't heard the arguments yet - just read some available reviews.
That second quote is gold to me - from what I've read, one of the keys to getting the mandate declared unconstitutional is convincing justice Kennedy that there's no limiting principle. Anyhow, I hope the Justices don't find this logic persuasive - I want the government to be Constitutionally constrained, not just constrained by common sense or benevolent attitudes.
And everyone was considered part of the militia. If Congress said "everyone is part of the militia and every member of the militia must purchase health insurance" this would change your opinion?
Everyone was clearly not considered part of the militia. Are you really so resistant to the idea that we should solve the healthcare problem without allowing the government to regulate a decision not to act and force me to buy a product from a private entity?
there are other ways to fix this problem that don't involve such an unbounded expansion of federal regulatory power.
A guide to Norwegian parties that are relevant to politics, from left-to-right according to the traditional way to order them
Rødt - Red - communists, got 1,3% last election and no seats. Which is bad, because it's nice for them to have one seat, atleast. They're good at being in opposition and asking good question. Good for nothing else.
SV - Socialist Left - Socialists of the hippier kind, got 6,2% last election and 11 seats. Large percentage of their voters are women working in the public sector. They like to shout about the environment. I hate this party. Currently part of the Red-Green government coalition.
AP - Labour - Democratic socialists of the old school. Got 35,4% last election and 64 seats. Pretty decent politics over all, apart from an annoying hard-on for regulations and bureaucracy. And "privatization" being a swear word to them as to SV. Currently part of the Red-Green government coalition.
SP - Centre Party (used to be called Farmer's party. Changed for no particular reason.) - Farmers. Got 6,2% last election and 11 seats. Their politics are district politics, more subsidies, more retarded way to regulate our farming, and generally blah blah blah bullshit about farming. I hate this party. Currently being the "Green" of the Red-Green government coalition.
V - Left/Liberal Party - Got 3,9 last election, 2 seats. Both socially and economically liberal, but not in a retarded way. The environment is also their big thing. I voted for this party. Usually reckoned as one of the "blue" parties.
KrF - Christian Democratic Party - Christians. 80% of their deal is just being christian. Got 5,5% last election and 10 seats. They're blah, but far from as blah as christian politicians in America. They're... inoffensive, mostly. One of the traditional "blue" parties.
H - Right - A little conservative but mostly just right-leaning economically. Got 17,2% last election and 30 seats. Party is for less government in the economy and privatization overall. Not too bad. One of the "blue" parties. The blue party.
FrP - Progressive Party - Populism. Got 22,9% the last election and 41 seats. If you're from the left, being compared to Satan is better than being compared to these guys. Their populism means they're for lower taxes especially on booze and cigarettes, and for a larger welfare state, and ignoring the incompatibility of this. They're also hard on immigration, and are (rigthly) seen as islamophobic and xenophobic. I absolutely loathe this party. Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism but atleast it's an ethos. Populism is just wishy-washy bullshit. Also a traditional "blue" party.
then comes what's usually listed as "the rest" which is the remaining 1,3% of votes and they're everything from christian fundies to pensioner's party to libertarians to white supremacists. I can't remember which we still have because who gives a fuck.
So the mandates are currently 86 red (SV, AP, SP) and 83 blue (V, KrF, H, FrP).
Abdhyius on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Let it be forever known that Organic Hu is a cheating bastard!
If watching TV at home vs watching it in a bar or something was 1/6th of the economy and you not doing so costs the government and taxpayers a ton of money, I would definitely consider regulating this.
"It's really expensive not to" is not a Constitutional justification for regulating something.
9 out of every 10 pro-mandate arguments devolve to "but we really want to do it! A lot!"
that is total disengenious bullshit spool. Seriously, this is full on partisan-shill slobbering Rupert Murdocks shriveled impotent cock.
Good to see you back in the prime of health, Riemann!
Jefferson was a pretty strange guy. No centralized bank, (I think he removed the US bank when he got in power didn't he?) and he thought the constitution should be rewritten every 2 decades or so, if I recall.
He was the conservative to Washington's "liberal."
My knowledge of post-colonial constituents is severely lacking though, so I could be wrong.
He also thought cities were awful, and that the country should be made up entirely of rural farms. He also blamed Britain for the institution of slavery in the U.S.
He was kind of crazy.
They can be pretty awful places at times.
He was off the kilter.
@spool32 I know Washington didn't think the constitution would make it 20 years, but didn't Jefferson call for a rewrite every 2 decades?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
Yeah, what the fuck is up with bottle service, anyway?
Same reason you pay $12 for a beer at a football game, or $20 for a hamburger in Disney World.
0
Options
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
Negative externalities is a real thing, and dont particularly respect state or even national borders. Look, I would love to let conservatives and libertarians die in the streets as their freedom/liberty policies would dictate. However, reality is not structured in such a way where they would not inflict massive costs on the rest of us against our will.
If watching TV at home vs watching it in a bar or something was 1/6th of the economy and you not doing so costs the government and taxpayers a ton of money, I would definitely consider regulating this.
"It's really expensive not to" is not a Constitutional justification for regulating something.
9 out of every 10 pro-mandate arguments devolve to "but we really want to do it! A lot!"
Thankfully the Constitution doesn't require Congress to justify why its regulating Commerce or to enact those laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution that regulation whether or not its expensive.
10 out of every 10 anti-mandate arguments devolve to "I don't like that! A lot!"
Yeah, what the fuck is up with bottle service, anyway?
Same reason you pay $12 for a beer at a football game, or $20 for a hamburger in Disney World.
maybe YOU do. I sneak drinks in (to the theater my nearest equivalent since I don't do sports) and a vacation package/meal plan is waaaaaay cheaper in Disney World.
Yeah, what the fuck is up with bottle service, anyway?
Ehhhh... It's nice having a spot to yourself and not jockeying for the attention of the bartender like 100 other people. Ounce per ounce it really isn't even that much more expensive than ordering from the bar.
In fairness, I used to be VIOLENTLY opposed to bottle service in my youth. Now Im old and can make a better drink than the eye candy they stick behind the bar.
The law requiring people to buy a gun was only for those in the militia. Also, I was talking about the SCOTUS argument today, not circuit court opinions. Of course I'm speculating a bit, because I haven't heard the arguments yet - just read some available reviews.
That second quote is gold to me - from what I've read, one of the keys to getting the mandate declared unconstitutional is convincing justice Kennedy that there's no limiting principle. Anyhow, I hope the Justices don't find this logic persuasive - I want the government to be Constitutionally constrained, not just constrained by common sense or benevolent attitudes.
And everyone was considered part of the militia. If Congress said "everyone is part of the militia and every member of the militia must purchase health insurance" this would change your opinion?
Everyone was clearly not considered part of the militia. Are you really so resistant to the idea that we should solve the healthcare problem without allowing the government to regulate a decision not to act and force me to buy a product from a private entity?
there are other ways to fix this problem that don't involve such an unbounded expansion of federal regulatory power.
I think you'd find that the majority of us agree, but one party in particular stands between the people and single - payer.
Everyone was clearly not considered part of the militia. Are you really so resistant to the idea that we should solve the healthcare problem without allowing the government to regulate a decision not to act and force me to buy a product from a private entity?
If the only repercussion of your refusal was a tax penalty, I'm fine with it.
Not if the act carried criminal repercussions, as Sotomayor mused.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The law requiring people to buy a gun was only for those in the militia. Also, I was talking about the SCOTUS argument today, not circuit court opinions. Of course I'm speculating a bit, because I haven't heard the arguments yet - just read some available reviews.
That second quote is gold to me - from what I've read, one of the keys to getting the mandate declared unconstitutional is convincing justice Kennedy that there's no limiting principle. Anyhow, I hope the Justices don't find this logic persuasive - I want the government to be Constitutionally constrained, not just constrained by common sense or benevolent attitudes.
And every able-bodied male was considered part of the militia. If Congress said "everyone is part of the militia and every member of the militia must purchase health insurance" this would change your opinion? If Congress said "everyone is part of the militia and in order to get in shape must join a gym" does that make a go-to-the-gym requirement go from Unconstitutional to Constitutional?
The Broccoli argument is just slippery slope
Slippery slope arguments aren't always fallacies. The exact same justification for the mandate also allows any sort of regulation on personal behavior with regards to health, including a gym membership, a pair of Nikes and a frequent shopper card at Wholefoods.
The law requiring people to buy a gun was only for those in the militia. Also, I was talking about the SCOTUS argument today, not circuit court opinions. Of course I'm speculating a bit, because I haven't heard the arguments yet - just read some available reviews.
That second quote is gold to me - from what I've read, one of the keys to getting the mandate declared unconstitutional is convincing justice Kennedy that there's no limiting principle. Anyhow, I hope the Justices don't find this logic persuasive - I want the government to be Constitutionally constrained, not just constrained by common sense or benevolent attitudes.
And everyone was considered part of the militia. If Congress said "everyone is part of the militia and every member of the militia must purchase health insurance" this would change your opinion?
Everyone was clearly not considered part of the militia. Are you really so resistant to the idea that we should solve the healthcare problem without allowing the government to regulate a decision not to act and force me to buy a product from a private entity?
there are other ways to fix this problem that don't involve such an unbounded expansion of federal regulatory power.
I think the whole suggestion sounds absurd.
do it through taxes! everyone else does it that way! It works! Stop trying to be fancy about it.
If watching TV at home vs watching it in a bar or something was 1/6th of the economy and you not doing so costs the government and taxpayers a ton of money, I would definitely consider regulating this.
"It's really expensive not to" is not a Constitutional justification for regulating something.
9 out of every 10 pro-mandate arguments devolve to "but we really want to do it! A lot!"
that is total disengenious bullshit spool. Seriously, this is full on partisan-shill slobbering Rupert Murdocks shriveled impotent cock.
Good to see you back in the prime of health, Riemann!
Indeed. And aparently the worst of my judgements of your intellect and character are well founded.
Because you don't like the ACA you immediately jump to "9 out of every 10 pro-mandate arguments devolve to "but we really want to do it! A lot!"".
That is utter bullshit and just shows that you are unwilling (incapable? possibly) to even approach this subject in anything but dishonest asshatery.
That kind of stuff is pretty much dogma around here but it doesn't hold water in the end. Europeans parties look favorably on comprehensive social safety nets than American parties, definitely. And there's no South in Europe. But Christian Democrats are to the right of the core of the Democratic Party (socially especially), and most Americans don't even consider the Democratic Party truly liberal.
I guess it depends on what your priorities are in choosing a political party. I tend to value the social safety net over purely social concerns, so for me, CDs would be a little more liberal than the official Democratic Party positions. For people that value social issues, they would be right of the Democrats but probably still left of the Republicans. I like the party diversity that shows up in European parliamentary systems, but there plenty of issues with it that we'll just keep in that thread.
Do you have numbers for the bolded? That goes against what I usually see.
Getting the average Price of a Playstation 1 console and a Blu Ray player as dictated by eBay, I calculate the minimum value of a Playstation 3 to be £55, or approximately $80.
Yeah, what the fuck is up with bottle service, anyway?
Ehhhh... It's nice having a spot to yourself and not jockeying for the attention of the bartender like 100 other people. Ounce per ounce it really isn't even that much more expensive than ordering from the bar.
In fairness, I used to be VIOLENTLY opposed to bottle service in my youth. Now Im old and can make a better drink than the eye candy they stick behind the bar.
I've never done that.
Mostly because A. If I'm buying a drink instead of beer it's because I'm somewhere I know they're good
and B. Where I usually am the eye candy behind the bar is really good eye candy.
The law requiring people to buy a gun was only for those in the militia. Also, I was talking about the SCOTUS argument today, not circuit court opinions. Of course I'm speculating a bit, because I haven't heard the arguments yet - just read some available reviews.
That second quote is gold to me - from what I've read, one of the keys to getting the mandate declared unconstitutional is convincing justice Kennedy that there's no limiting principle. Anyhow, I hope the Justices don't find this logic persuasive - I want the government to be Constitutionally constrained, not just constrained by common sense or benevolent attitudes.
And everyone was considered part of the militia. If Congress said "everyone is part of the militia and every member of the militia must purchase health insurance" this would change your opinion?
Everyone was clearly not considered part of the militia. Are you really so resistant to the idea that we should solve the healthcare problem without allowing the government to regulate a decision not to act and force me to buy a product from a private entity?
there are other ways to fix this problem that don't involve such an unbounded expansion of federal regulatory power.
Its not an expansion of federal regulatory power. Its one that has long precedent going back to the decision that a farmer could be prohibited from growing wheat for personal consumption because he might have otherwise bought wheat as part of Congress's ability to regulate the interstate wheat market. Requiring people to have a minimum amount of health insurance as a portion of the regulating the health insurance market is not some kind of stretch from that.
Everyone who had rights was considered part of the militia. Would you still say this law was Unconstitutional if it was requiring all men 18-49 to buy guns? If it said everyone had to buy guns? If it said all men 18-49 had to buy health insurance?
Stop pretending its a legal complaint. Its a political complaint. You all but admit it: "there are other ways to fix this problem that don't involve such an unbounded expansion of federal regulatory power."
Slippery slope arguments aren't always fallacies. The exact same justification for the mandate also allows any sort of regulation on personal behavior with regards to health, including a gym membership, a pair of Nikes and a frequent shopper card at Wholefoods.
So what? That's not a legal argument thats a "look at these dumb laws" argument.
Posts
"It's really expensive not to" is not a Constitutional justification for regulating something.
9 out of every 10 pro-mandate arguments devolve to "but we really want to do it! A lot!"
JAPERIES
fuck you, words with friends!
i win forever!
And every able-bodied male was considered part of the militia. If Congress said "everyone is part of the militia and every member of the militia must purchase health insurance" this would change your opinion? If Congress said "everyone is part of the militia and in order to get in shape must join a gym" does that make a go-to-the-gym requirement go from Unconstitutional to Constitutional?
The Broccoli argument is just slippery slope
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It's going to be pretty low key to be honest.
Heading to AC, doing some gambling, obligatory club that plays "shots" and charges $300+ for a bottle of $30 liguor, and having two nice dinners.
No strippers, hookers, or midgets.
that is total disengenious bullshit spool. Seriously, this is full on partisan-shill slobbering Rupert Murdocks shriveled impotent cock.
Sounds like good times, even without the midgets
I am only privy to the details of mine up to 10pm, worryingly.
why participate in such a scam
'cism
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Everyone was clearly not considered part of the militia. Are you really so resistant to the idea that we should solve the healthcare problem without allowing the government to regulate a decision not to act and force me to buy a product from a private entity?
there are other ways to fix this problem that don't involve such an unbounded expansion of federal regulatory power.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
not the PS3
the ps3 is worth at least $50
DAMN YOU TO HELL
Rødt - Red - communists, got 1,3% last election and no seats. Which is bad, because it's nice for them to have one seat, atleast. They're good at being in opposition and asking good question. Good for nothing else.
SV - Socialist Left - Socialists of the hippier kind, got 6,2% last election and 11 seats. Large percentage of their voters are women working in the public sector. They like to shout about the environment. I hate this party. Currently part of the Red-Green government coalition.
AP - Labour - Democratic socialists of the old school. Got 35,4% last election and 64 seats. Pretty decent politics over all, apart from an annoying hard-on for regulations and bureaucracy. And "privatization" being a swear word to them as to SV. Currently part of the Red-Green government coalition.
SP - Centre Party (used to be called Farmer's party. Changed for no particular reason.) - Farmers. Got 6,2% last election and 11 seats. Their politics are district politics, more subsidies, more retarded way to regulate our farming, and generally blah blah blah bullshit about farming. I hate this party. Currently being the "Green" of the Red-Green government coalition.
V - Left/Liberal Party - Got 3,9 last election, 2 seats. Both socially and economically liberal, but not in a retarded way. The environment is also their big thing. I voted for this party. Usually reckoned as one of the "blue" parties.
KrF - Christian Democratic Party - Christians. 80% of their deal is just being christian. Got 5,5% last election and 10 seats. They're blah, but far from as blah as christian politicians in America. They're... inoffensive, mostly. One of the traditional "blue" parties.
H - Right - A little conservative but mostly just right-leaning economically. Got 17,2% last election and 30 seats. Party is for less government in the economy and privatization overall. Not too bad. One of the "blue" parties. The blue party.
FrP - Progressive Party - Populism. Got 22,9% the last election and 41 seats. If you're from the left, being compared to Satan is better than being compared to these guys. Their populism means they're for lower taxes especially on booze and cigarettes, and for a larger welfare state, and ignoring the incompatibility of this. They're also hard on immigration, and are (rigthly) seen as islamophobic and xenophobic. I absolutely loathe this party. Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism but atleast it's an ethos. Populism is just wishy-washy bullshit. Also a traditional "blue" party.
then comes what's usually listed as "the rest" which is the remaining 1,3% of votes and they're everything from christian fundies to pensioner's party to libertarians to white supremacists. I can't remember which we still have because who gives a fuck.
So the mandates are currently 86 red (SV, AP, SP) and 83 blue (V, KrF, H, FrP).
Good to see you back in the prime of health, Riemann!
They can be pretty awful places at times.
He was off the kilter.
@spool32 I know Washington didn't think the constitution would make it 20 years, but didn't Jefferson call for a rewrite every 2 decades?
All the jew jokes didn't give you a raging clue?
Same reason you pay $12 for a beer at a football game, or $20 for a hamburger in Disney World.
Basically, fuck freedom and fuck liberty.
Thankfully the Constitution doesn't require Congress to justify why its regulating Commerce or to enact those laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution that regulation whether or not its expensive.
10 out of every 10 anti-mandate arguments devolve to "I don't like that! A lot!"
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
maybe YOU do. I sneak drinks in (to the theater my nearest equivalent since I don't do sports) and a vacation package/meal plan is waaaaaay cheaper in Disney World.
Ehhhh... It's nice having a spot to yourself and not jockeying for the attention of the bartender like 100 other people. Ounce per ounce it really isn't even that much more expensive than ordering from the bar.
In fairness, I used to be VIOLENTLY opposed to bottle service in my youth. Now Im old and can make a better drink than the eye candy they stick behind the bar.
I love squats!
But then the bulk of my mass and like 98% of my strength is in my legs.
estas loco, hermano?
If the only repercussion of your refusal was a tax penalty, I'm fine with it.
Not if the act carried criminal repercussions, as Sotomayor mused.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Slippery slope arguments aren't always fallacies. The exact same justification for the mandate also allows any sort of regulation on personal behavior with regards to health, including a gym membership, a pair of Nikes and a frequent shopper card at Wholefoods.
I think the whole suggestion sounds absurd.
do it through taxes! everyone else does it that way! It works! Stop trying to be fancy about it.
Indeed. And aparently the worst of my judgements of your intellect and character are well founded.
Because you don't like the ACA you immediately jump to "9 out of every 10 pro-mandate arguments devolve to "but we really want to do it! A lot!"".
That is utter bullshit and just shows that you are unwilling (incapable? possibly) to even approach this subject in anything but dishonest asshatery.
If, by some huge chance, you are willing to retract your post and actually think about this issue I would urge you to take a look at this (and the massive number of links contained within): http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/03/understanding-affordable-care-act.html
edit: especially this one: http://volokh.com/2012/03/09/understanding-justice-scalias-concurring-opinion-in-raich/
I've been doing a ton of those for a while and I have no pain.
And therefore no gain.
Ven a me, guay!
Do you have numbers for the bolded? That goes against what I usually see.
I've never done that.
Mostly because A. If I'm buying a drink instead of beer it's because I'm somewhere I know they're good
and B. Where I usually am the eye candy behind the bar is really good eye candy.
Its not an expansion of federal regulatory power. Its one that has long precedent going back to the decision that a farmer could be prohibited from growing wheat for personal consumption because he might have otherwise bought wheat as part of Congress's ability to regulate the interstate wheat market. Requiring people to have a minimum amount of health insurance as a portion of the regulating the health insurance market is not some kind of stretch from that.
Everyone who had rights was considered part of the militia. Would you still say this law was Unconstitutional if it was requiring all men 18-49 to buy guns? If it said everyone had to buy guns? If it said all men 18-49 had to buy health insurance?
Stop pretending its a legal complaint. Its a political complaint. You all but admit it: "there are other ways to fix this problem that don't involve such an unbounded expansion of federal regulatory power."
edit So what? That's not a legal argument thats a "look at these dumb laws" argument.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I like this map.