Recent posts by Ceasar on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Pel, 50th KG Tournament FINAL AFTER DAY 3

Hmm, seems I misposted, so I’ll just edit that so it actually shows a score…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Could solar panels drain all of the energy from the sun?

Retired science teacher Jane Mann feared the proposed solar ranch could hinder photosynthesis — the process of converting light energy from the sun into chemical energy for fuel — in the area and stop plants from growing.

Technically true, for those areas directly shaded by the panels… but somehow you get the feeling that’s not what she meant.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Pel, 50th KG Tournament FINAL AFTER DAY 3

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Pel, 50th KG Tournament FINAL AFTER DAY 3

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Pel, 50th KG Tournament FINAL AFTER DAY 3

A score.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Pel, 50th KG Tournament FINAL AFTER DAY 3

I’ll probably try again later, for for now, this.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Pel, 50th KG Tournament FINAL AFTER DAY 3

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Pel, 50th KG Tournament FINAL AFTER DAY 3

And, to Magicant, you can use the <b> tag to get bold.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Pel, 50th KG Tournament FINAL AFTER DAY 3

A score.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Pel, 50th KG Tournament FINAL AFTER DAY 3

A score.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Pel, 50th KG Tournament FINAL AFTER DAY 3

Well, it’s “a score”.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / 7x7 - The 49th Kongregate community gaming tournament (Fin. Congratz to ShawnerSSS and dederteee! ~ Post-Tourney Discussion)

Eh, why not. I’ll register. And drop me a message if you still need spreadsheeters and I’ll give you my Google email.

(Protector) Legendary Protector – My 1st hard badge.
(Pandemic 2) President Madagascar Assassin – My 1st impossible badge.
(Mardek 3) Psychosomatic Exhaustion – My 2nd impossible.
(The Necronomicon) Necronomiconquerer – My 3rd impossible.
(Vector Runner) Tunnel Vision – My 4th impossible.
(Oroboros) Seeker Slicer – This was one of the hardest “easy” badges, and getting this allowed me (at the time) to have ALL the easy badges.
(Zening) Zenner – Only 2817 people have this badge, making it the least-earned badge I have, and I managed to get it without a human team – I had to deal with AI-run allies.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

The discussion is about if it’s ethical to hand out “Peace Prizes” for things not accomplished yet.

I wouldn’t say it’s unethical. You can give your prize to whoever you like. I would say it’s stupid, if you want your award to mean anything.

Obama is directly responsible for the shameful migrant situation in the middle east.

I give him indirect responsibility only. The ones directly responsible are the ones who are actually destroying cities.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Rosa Parks: The Kim Davis of Black People??

Ceasar, our Constitution directly specifies that ONLY the House of Representatives can impeach the President

Yes, and that state’s Constitution likely specifies that ONLY the state legislature can impeach the official in question here. Same thing.

As far as criminal contempt goes, you could go that route, but you’re not going to get a federal contempt trial completed before the legislature is back in session. She’d be able to request a new judge, since the old one would be considered biased, and that alone would take some time. She’d also have the right to seek new counsel and enough time to get them up to speed on her case, on the grounds that this would now be a criminal case distinct from the current civil case. And would that even remove her from office, or would she continue to hold the office from jail? Criminal contempt, unlike civil contempt, cannot be cured with compliance, so she’d have no incentive to resign.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Rosa Parks: The Kim Davis of Black People??

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by Ceasar:
I think there are probably some opportunities to temporarily remove her from office until the state legislature convenes in a few months

I really don’t think the judicial branch can, or should, temporarily remove her from office. It’s a checks and balances thing – the legislature is the body with the power of impeachment, and the judicial branch can’t simply take that power because they think the legislature is being too slow. The legislature COULD hold a special session, after all, if they deemed it important enough.

Just tossing in some thoughts here … ya can toss them out if ya want. lol

The U.S. Attorney General (Justice Dept.) and/or a Fed Judge might be able to “step in” due to the nature of this situation = denial of the Civil Rights (even though this isn’t yet a fact for most states) given in the Constitution … which might interestingly enough, set a precedent. <<< that silver lining I mentioned earlier which would be a great back-firing for the hateful far-right’s cause to keep them damn fags in their place.
.


insubordination

Utterly impossible for an elected official. She doesn’t have a boss she could be insubordinate to.

I’m thinking probably her boss is the Constitution … state and federal. Basically stated: her boss is We the People. Those are who she SERVES; she has sworn to uphold the Constitution. That is why I’m saying a Fed. judge (representing the law of the land) would represent us as being “boss”.

I hope we find some answers to these points.
It might be some good life-lessons in civics for us Americans …. ones that seem to be severely lacking and even more so needed.

I am sure that various rulings have found that Obama has, repeatedly, taken some action or another that has violated the Constitution and deprived someone of their rights. I would not want to set a precedent that would allow some federal judge to remove him from office.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Rosa Parks: The Kim Davis of Black People??

US Labor Laws stipulate that a person can be fired only for very specific reasons.

That depends on the state; in many a person can be fired for any reason unless it’s for an illegal reason (like firing someone for being black) or there’s a contract involved. But, as you say, ordinary labor laws don’t apply here anyway.

I think there are probably some opportunities to temporarily remove her from office until the state legislature convenes in a few months

I really don’t think the judicial branch can, or should, temporarily remove her from office. It’s a checks and balances thing – the legislature is the body with the power of impeachment, and the judicial branch can’t simply take that power because they think the legislature is being too slow. The legislature COULD hold a special session, after all, if they deemed it important enough.

insubordination

Utterly impossible for an elected official. She doesn’t have a boss she could be insubordinate to.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Rosa Parks: The Kim Davis of Black People??

Legally, yes ’those people are married"

Without the certificate, ARE they? If that was the case, there wouldn’t be a problem.

Also, what’s to prevent Davis from refusing sign off on marriage certificates from other religions because they don’t fit her ‘biblical definition’ of marriage? (the logic here being, “If you heathens aren’t getting married in a Christian church, then you aren’t really married!”)

Marriage predates Christianity; Jesus turned water into wine at what was presumably a Jewish wedding. What’s to prevent her? The same thing that’s preventing her from doing what she’s doing now, I guess.

When a judge declares a man actually standing in front of him to be dead, then that makes me a lot more sympathetic to any clerk who may want to go against the judge and refuse to issue (or revoke) a death certificate. Judges pretty much get immunity from everything no matter how ridiculous; if Davis was a judge, she wouldn’t be in jail for her actions.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Rosa Parks: The Kim Davis of Black People??

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Ceasar:

Is she going to refuse to issue a birth certificate with a male listed as the mother?

Thanks for the reminder that because we are going to reach the point that’s possible eventually, when we do, we’ll likely go through something like this whole media circus again. Purely because someone in a position of authority will object to a male giving birth to a child, “because it offends my religion”.

Do you own stock in antidepressive manufacturers Ceasar? Their value is going to climb with any more thoughts like that…

Hmm. But, one could argue, “those people aren’t really married”. It’s much harder to argue “that guy didn’t give birth to that child.” Maybe it’s offensive to someone, but it happened, and there’s no point in not issuing the certificate it any more than it would make sense to refuse to issue a birth certificate to a child of a single mother, or refusing to issue a death certificate to a murder victim because he died before his time.

One could also argue that documenting the marriage is, in a sense, what makes the person married, but documenting a birth or death is not what makes the person alive or dead.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Rosa Parks: The Kim Davis of Black People??

Last point, given all of the many duties a CC has, how many of them might ALSO end up being a conflict-of-service for Gays or whoever for whatever?

Is she going to refuse to issue a birth certificate with a male listed as the mother? That… might actually be appropriate, since it’s supposed to list the biological mother, I think. Anyway, I don’t think she’d have any objection to charging property taxes to gays, or writing their death certificates, or registering them to vote. But even if she did, gays don’t make up 83% of the population, so she’d still have work to do. If nothing else, she’s likely in charge of the office, with all of the managerial duties that entails.

While this does support the point that Davis could shuffle off the marriage licensing to a deputy, SHE DIDN’T DO THAT

Right, that’s why I’m not on her side here. In a similar case, there was a judge somewhere who asked to be taken off of the marriage officiation rotation, and was refused. I mean, officiating marriages is probably the easiest thing on a judge’s list of duties, and there are plenty of judges in his jurisdiction, and judges sometimes recuse themselves from cases for various reasons anyway, so there was no reason why he could not be accommodated. That guy I would support. But Davis? She was given the opportunity to pass the duty to someone else. Sorry, but that has to be good enough for her.

That is why I see her as a bad person because she very likely doesn’t “follow the Bible” in the many other areas that are even more relative than “men lying w/ men”.

You see her as a bad person because you think she doesn’t follow the Bible in other areas? That seems like pure speculation, and it’s probably irrelevant. If she were male, would you also be speculating about how she’s probably in the closet? And nothing says she has to take just the Bible as her source of morality.

But yeah, I do wonder if her attorneys are working in her best interests, or if they’re working in their own best interests. Maybe they’re an activist group with an agenda, but if they take a case, they have an obligation to their client even if it goes against their group’s work, and if they can’t handle that, they shouldn’t have her as a client. If they’re advising her to be in contempt then they are probably breaking their ethical obligations.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Rosa Parks: The Kim Davis of Black People??

Also, how is not infringing people’s rights a crime?

I never said it wasn’t a crime. I said she wasn’t convicted of it, and therefore the judge cannot put her in jail for the purpose of punishment at this time.

You’d need an actual trial, with a jury and everything. I’m not saying you can or can’t do that – I’m not sure if the “deprivation of liberty under color of law” statutes would apply here or not (although I tend to read vague criminal statutes in favor of the defendant, and getting this wrong would make her a legitimate martyr) – I’m just saying it hasn’t been done to her yet and you can’t punish her without a conviction, no matter how guilty you think she is. And if you went that route, she’d be out on bail in the meantime, so it’s not going to help anyone trying to get married now. The legislature would be in session to impeach her or change the law long before a trial could be scheduled.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why is ObamaCare opposed so strongly?

So if a large number of people happen to need extra care in a period, you’re SOL?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Rosa Parks: The Kim Davis of Black People??

It doesn’t make financial sense to hire somebody who is unwilling to fulfill their whole job description

But that’s nowhere near “their whole job description.” I’m sure the clerks do a heck of a lot more than marriage licenses. Considering the number of deputy clerks, there should be plenty of other work for her to do. And it doesn’t take long at all to shove an application onto someone else’s desk. It would be similar to a grocery store accommodating someone with a religious objection to alcohol by having someone else ring up the alcohol – they actually have to do this anyway if a minor is working a register, at least in my state. The fact that a person in a grocery store doesn’t deal with alcohol does not significantly reduce their workload or create an undue burden, and neither would a person in the county clerk’s office not dealing with marriage licenses.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why is ObamaCare opposed so strongly?

Do we have panels of medical experts determine if someone’s acne is severe enough for the government to pay for its treatment?

I think a doctor would suffice. You already need one since it’s a prescription, right?

Doctors make these borderline calls on things like painkillers all the time.

It just seems inefficient to have “insurance” for a predictable monthly expense. That would be like your car insurance paying to fill your gas tank.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Rosa Parks: The Kim Davis of Black People??

She is, I think we all agree, out-of-line. (That’s been firmly established, right?)

To my satisfaction, anyway. Obviously some people disagree.

Some are depicting her punishment as an effort to get her to recant her views.

If true, that would be unacceptable. But as far as I can tell it’s not true. (Unless they’re talking about a very specific view on whether she needs to resign, but I don’t think that’s what we’re referring to here.)

Only one of Davis’ deputy clerks maintained his defiant stance in solidarity with Davis. He has not (yet) been penalized. I suspect he will be fired.

I doubt it. It would make him a martyr, the other clerks can handle the job, the judge didn’t order him to do it, and if Kim Davis is his boss there’s no way she’s going to fire him (not least because he’s her son.)

Davis continues to declare her authority and has said that any licenses without her signature are invalid.

If her signature is in fact needed, I’m not sure what’s going on with those deputy clerks signing things – I hope anyone getting a license from that county is prepared to discover that the marriage isn’t legal due to lack of signature by the person who is supposed to sign them. The judge can try to get her to sign, but can’t physically force her, and would likely be overstepping their authority to declare the signature wasn’t needed if the law says it is.

Davis has refused four licenses to same-sex couples, two of whom defined themselves as heterosexual.

Heterosexual same-sex couples? What, are they just getting married for the tax breaks, or am I missing something here?

Her religion does not mandate protecting others from sin
Her signature on someone else’s marriage certificate is not a sin (that I know of).

See, now you’re trying to get into the realm of telling her what her beliefs are again. Give her the benefit of the doubt on that. It barely even matters, anyway – would her actions suddenly become valid if she could point to a doctrine? They offered her the reasonable accommodation of having the deputy clerks sign instead, and she refused it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why is ObamaCare opposed so strongly?

Not to cherrypick, but as of a few years ago, 58% of women using reproductive hormone regulators were doing so for medical reasons.

I wouldn’t call it cherrypicking when it’s the only example I gave on that point.

Anyway, that means 42% of them were not taking them for medical reasons, right? And that was likely before their coverage was mandated; I would assume that if they are covered under everyone’s insurance, their use would go up, and the use would go up more for less serious reasons (I assume that most people who would take them for serious reasons like cysts are already taking them.)

And of course I don’t want your friend to die. That’s why I said “unless there’s an actual medical reason why it is needed.” I wouldn’t want to cover aspirin either if it was just being used for occasional pain relief, but if someone had a heart condition where they’d be more likely to die if they didn’t take it every day, then I would cover it.

start calling ’em hormone regulators instead of birth control, see what happens in your conversations

That’s fine – so long as they aren’t being used primarily for birth control. Otherwise it’s just Orwellian.