- Time
- Post link
what
I corrected my post so that it no longer looks like I am talking to myself.
The blue elephant in the room.
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 788
This topic has been locked by a moderator.
- Time
- Post link
Says you. :p
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Mrebo said:
Not all states’ rights people are absolutist (I’m not).You’re not?
You read right.
Could you elaborate? In what way aren’t you a states’ right absolutist? Are you a 10th amendment absolutist?
For example, I think the federal government has the authority to regulate health insurance. And as a matter of policy I can’t say it is best for the states to regulate it. That doesn’t mean I think the federal government can do anything it wants relating to health insurance nor that anything it might do is good, but it’s one area where I’m not opposed to the federal government regulating instead of states.
I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I absolutely believe in that…but I don’t know that that answers much.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Mrebo said:
Not all states’ rights people are absolutist (I’m not).You’re not?
You read right.
Could you elaborate? In what way aren’t you a states’ right absolutist? Are you a 10th amendment absolutist?
For example, I think the federal government has the authority to regulate health insurance. And as a matter of policy I can’t say it is best for the states to regulate it. That doesn’t mean I think the federal government can do anything it wants relating to health insurance nor that anything it might do is good, but it’s one area where I’m not opposed to the federal government regulating instead of states.
I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I absolutely believe in that…but I don’t know that that answers much.
I never understood why the concept of States’ Rights was so confusing.
States’ Rights begin where the Constitution ends. States can enact laws that make sense for their own people, but they can’t enact laws that violate the Constitution.
Our most transformative federal laws came about because of state laws that conflicted with the Constitution. If a state law is unjust for its own people, it’s probably unjust for all people, which over time causes it to bubble up to the national level. It’s ironic that state tyrants end up being the engine for the societal change they’d so like to see held back.
MTFBWY…A
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:
Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either
- are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution
and/or
- are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution
When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?
- Time
- Post link
I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:
Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either
- are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution
and/or
- are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution
When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?
When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.
It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).
The blue elephant in the room.
- Time
- Post link
I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:
Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either
- are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution
and/or
- are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution
When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?
When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.
It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).
How about medical marijuana?
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
- Time
- Post link
I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:
Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either
- are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution
and/or
- are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution
When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?
When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.
It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).
How about medical marijuana?
Nothing in the Constitution says I can’t smoke pot, medicinal or otherwise. If the mistake (conspiracy?) of the Drug War is undone, states would have to decide what to do about drug use – and what they should decide (but they won’t because $$$) is to stay the hell out of everyone’s lives.
Laws surrounding cultivating marijuana, brewing alcohol, or producing any other substance are all governmental overreach.
MTFBWY…A
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Nothing more horrifying than a cop that wants less restrictions on who he can shoot to death. Disgusting!
I also find it funny that this man thinks being on Gavin McInnes’s show is a good thing. That guy borders on being a white identitarian and he lies about almost everything.
EDIT: I can’t watch all of the videos because I don’t have time, but there’s a really frightening fascist statement where he said, “Innocent people don’t run.” Cops don’t decide who is innocent or not in this nation, or at least they are not supposed to. I’m so sick and goddamned tired of cops saying that running should be a death sentence.
The Person in Question
- Time
- Post link
Nothing more horrifying than a cop that wants less restrictions on who he can shoot to death. Disgusting!
I also find it funny that this man thinks being on Gavin McInnes’s show is a good thing. That guy borders on being a white identitarian and he lies about almost everything.
EDIT: I can’t watch all of the videos because I don’t have time, but there’s a really frightening fascist statement where he said, “Innocent people don’t run.” Cops don’t decide who is innocent or not in this nation, or at least they are not supposed to. I’m so sick and goddamned tired of cops saying that running should be a death sentence.
Identitarian?
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Nothing more horrifying than a cop that wants less restrictions on who he can shoot to death. Disgusting!
I also find it funny that this man thinks being on Gavin McInnes’s show is a good thing. That guy borders on being a white identitarian and he lies about almost everything.
EDIT: I can’t watch all of the videos because I don’t have time, but there’s a really frightening fascist statement where he said, “Innocent people don’t run.” Cops don’t decide who is innocent or not in this nation, or at least they are not supposed to. I’m so sick and goddamned tired of cops saying that running should be a death sentence.
Identitarian?
Extremely nationalistic, white-pride, anti-immigrant. Gavin McInnes has repeatedly said that white people should be proud of the achievements of the white race and he said that the camps the immigrant children are kept in are actually really nice and they should be happy to live in them. He described MLK as a “leech,” and is opposed to gay rights. That sort of thing. He’s very much an alt-right mouthpiece.
The Person in Question
- Time
- Post link
Nothing more horrifying than a cop that wants less restrictions on who he can shoot to death. Disgusting!
I also find it funny that this man thinks being on Gavin McInnes’s show is a good thing. That guy borders on being a white identitarian and he lies about almost everything.
EDIT: I can’t watch all of the videos because I don’t have time, but there’s a really frightening fascist statement where he said, “Innocent people don’t run.” Cops don’t decide who is innocent or not in this nation, or at least they are not supposed to. I’m so sick and goddamned tired of cops saying that running should be a death sentence.
Identitarian?
Extremely nationalistic, white-pride, anti-immigrant. Gavin McInnes has repeatedly said that white people should be proud of the achievements of the white race and he said that the camps the immigrant children are kept in are actually really nice and they should be happy to live in them. He described MLK as a “leech,” and is opposed to gay rights. That sort of thing. He’s very much an alt-right mouthpiece.
So you were calling McInnes an Identitarian, not Mike The Cop.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Yes. I thought it was funny, and kind of disturbing, that a cop would be endorsed by such a person. I’m calling Mike the Cop an apologist for police brutality and excessive force. 'Cause that’s what motherfucker is, dude!
The Person in Question
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:
Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either
- are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution
and/or
- are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution
When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?
When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.
It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).
How about medical marijuana?
Nothing in the Constitution says I can’t smoke pot, medicinal or otherwise. If the mistake (conspiracy?) of the Drug War is undone, states would have to decide what to do about drug use – and what they should decide (but they won’t because $$$) is to stay the hell out of everyone’s lives.
Laws surrounding cultivating marijuana, brewing alcohol, or producing any other substance are all governmental overreach.
There are enforcement problems with leaving certain things like that up to the states. If one state says you can’t produce or distribute pot, and the neighboring state says you can, people who live near enough to the neighbor will just go over there, purchase it, and bring it back. It’s a major reason why using Chicago as a proof that gun control doesn’t work is flawed. People can still go to the suburbs to buy them and it really isn’t that inconvenient to do so.
Having certain things handled at the federal level solves issues with enforcing laws that cross state lines.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
- Time
- Post link
I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:
Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either
- are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution
and/or
- are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution
When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?
When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.
It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).
How about medical marijuana?
The FDA should regulate that. In states where pot is legal it may not make much of a difference, but allow people in other states to have approved medication.
I’m not in favor of legalization and I never had an interest in the stuff. So my desire for the federal government to step back isn’t self-serving. It’s partly based on my view that the federal government is overstepping the bounds of its authority and partly on the view that there is value in states forging their own paths, especially where an activity is so broadly practiced with relatively little harm.
The blue elephant in the room.
- Time
- Post link
Yes. I thought it was funny, and kind of disturbing, that a cop would be endorsed by such a person. I’m calling Mike the Cop an apologist for police brutality and excessive force. 'Cause that’s what motherfucker is, dude!
More proof that reasoned conversation is not to be had with you.
- Time
- Post link
Yes. I thought it was funny, and kind of disturbing, that a cop would be endorsed by such a person. I’m calling Mike the Cop an apologist for police brutality and excessive force. 'Cause that’s what motherfucker is, dude!
More proof that reasoned conversation is not to be had with you.
Take out the last sentence and it doesn’t seem any different than any other “reasoned” conversation.
.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Yes. I thought it was funny, and kind of disturbing, that a cop would be endorsed by such a person. I’m calling Mike the Cop an apologist for police brutality and excessive force. 'Cause that’s what motherfucker is, dude!
More proof that reasoned conversation is not to be had with you.
Mike the Cop literally believes that if you run away from him while he’s in uniform, then he has the legal right to shoot you multiple times in the back and kill you. Oh, but he might think it’s a tragedy afterward, which is cold comfort to the dead kid and his family.
The Person in Question
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Yes. I thought it was funny, and kind of disturbing, that a cop would be endorsed by such a person. I’m calling Mike the Cop an apologist for police brutality and excessive force. 'Cause that’s what motherfucker is, dude!
More proof that reasoned conversation is not to be had with you.
Take out the last sentence and it doesn’t seem any different than any other “reasoned” conversation.
?
Please elaborate.
- Time
- Post link
I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:
Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either
- are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution
and/or
- are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution
When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?
When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.
It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).
How about medical marijuana?
The FDA should regulate that. In states where pot is legal it may not make much of a difference, but allow people in other states to have approved medication.
I’m not in favor of legalization and I never had an interest in the stuff. So my desire for the federal government to step back isn’t self-serving. It’s partly based on my view that the federal government is overstepping the bounds of its authority and partly on the view that there is value in states forging their own paths, especially where an activity is so broadly practiced with relatively little harm.
Okay, so the federal government can’t ban you from imbibing a substance, but the state can? Why is that any better? This is what I mean when I complain that states’ rights is bullshit when it’s all about the rights that states can deprive you of.
The Person in Question
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Yes. I thought it was funny, and kind of disturbing, that a cop would be endorsed by such a person. I’m calling Mike the Cop an apologist for police brutality and excessive force. 'Cause that’s what motherfucker is, dude!
More proof that reasoned conversation is not to be had with you.
Mike the Cop literally believes that if you run away from him while he’s in uniform, then he has the legal right to shoot you multiple times in the back and kill you. Oh, but he might think it’s a tragedy afterward, which is cold comfort to the dead kid and his family.
Did you watched the whole video? If no, then maybe you don’t really know exactly what he believes.
To be exact, he does believe that a cop can shoot a fleeing person under certain circumstances and he sited a US Supreme Court ruling to back him up.
- Time
- Post link
Yes. I thought it was funny, and kind of disturbing, that a cop would be endorsed by such a person. I’m calling Mike the Cop an apologist for police brutality and excessive force. 'Cause that’s what motherfucker is, dude!
More proof that reasoned conversation is not to be had with you.
Take out the last sentence and it doesn’t seem any different than any other “reasoned” conversation.
?
Please elaborate.
He thinks the man is an apologist for brutality, because “Mike the Cop” seems to defend brutality (I didn’t watch the videos, I won’t comment any opinions on the matter). Sounds reasonable to me. The only part that makes it seem inflammatory or otherwise “unreasonable” is the “motherfucker” sentence.
.
- Time
- Post link
Yes. I thought it was funny, and kind of disturbing, that a cop would be endorsed by such a person. I’m calling Mike the Cop an apologist for police brutality and excessive force. 'Cause that’s what motherfucker is, dude!
More proof that reasoned conversation is not to be had with you.
Mike the Cop literally believes that if you run away from him while he’s in uniform, then he has the legal right to shoot you multiple times in the back and kill you. Oh, but he might think it’s a tragedy afterward, which is cold comfort to the dead kid and his family.
Did you watched the whole video? If no, then maybe you don’t really know exactly what he believes.
To be exact, he does believe that he does believe a cop can shoot a fleeing person under certain circumstances and he sited a US Supreme Court ruling to back him up.
I sure hope he believes that he believes something. 😉
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Yes. I thought it was funny, and kind of disturbing, that a cop would be endorsed by such a person. I’m calling Mike the Cop an apologist for police brutality and excessive force. 'Cause that’s what motherfucker is, dude!
More proof that reasoned conversation is not to be had with you.
Mike the Cop literally believes that if you run away from him while he’s in uniform, then he has the legal right to shoot you multiple times in the back and kill you. Oh, but he might think it’s a tragedy afterward, which is cold comfort to the dead kid and his family.
Did you watched the whole video? If no, then maybe you don’t really know exactly what he believes.
To be exact, he does believe that he does believe a cop can shoot a fleeing person under certain circumstances and he sited a US Supreme Court ruling to back him up.
Mike the Cop literally believes that if you run away from him while he’s in uniform in certain circumstances, then he has the legal right to shoot you multiple times in the back and kill you, even if you’re unarmed. Is that better? I did watch parts of his videos and I saw some other videos of his and I think he’s dangerous. I wish people like him were not cops and didn’t have access to firearms.
And the Supreme Court has said all kinds of horrible shit in the past. The Supreme Court said Bush could be president without even finishing the Florida recount. The Supreme Court said segregation was A-okay. The Supreme court said black people were property, not people. Need I go on?
And how many goddamn minutes do I have to watch to form an opinion? I watched like 10 minutes of a thirty-something minute video. You’ve done this before where you’ve hid behind long, boring videos that no one can criticize without watching, and you even proved to me that it seems like I got the gist of his stance from what I saw.
The Person in Question