There are no States Rights, there are power & authority as delegated by the Federal Government, when segregation of schools was legislated as illegal by the Federal Government and the National Guard was called in to enforce the Law, it proved that there is no such thing as a State Right to go contrary to Federal law. S.S.M. is in the same league, if the Federal Government says it is legal, then a State can kick and scream just as they did over interracial marriages, and the objections were perhaps even stronger in opposition to interracial marriage. So pardon me if I think objections to S.S.M. is just as weak and bigoted as objecting to marriage between Blacks and Whites. You need not be Gay or participate in anything Gay, or marry a Gay person or encourage or promote anything LGBT. Do not bake any cakes for them either. However, why would you interfere in a couple wanting to marry is beyond me. Healthcare, custody of children, inheritance and other issues, all hinge on marriage which many people would deny others. People have Rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Do not stand in the way of it, normal or not. Two women both living a hard life alone, both widows, both have a child each, they meet by accident in a Burger King, their children act like they have always known each other, have tons in common... Their parents really have tons in common too, and by getting married, help each other, they really love each other. But noooooooo a State Rights advocate wants to ruin a great thing, don't normalize the Gay Lifestyle ! A Crock of poop, old Men that want to Dick-tate what is normal and what is not. Standing in front of the mirror yelling; by the Power of Numbskull !!!! Ughhhh.... Let people Love & care for each other, LGBT etc....
What about sanctuary cities, should there be state's rights? How about the authority of the local government? How about when it comes to education? Marijuana legalization? Not only are there state's rights, I am confident you believe there should be. The problem here isn't one of whether or not states should have power to govern themselves, but instead whether or not states should have the power to suppress their citizens rights. The federal government should absolutely respect state's rights, but they should also step in to defend the rights of individuals from potential tyranny of state government. Not offering your citizens equal protection of the law is a serious violation, which justifies federal intervention to protect the rights of LGBTQ people.
So we agree. I however disagree that States have Rights, they have power and authority to act as long as they do not violate civil Rights, or Federal laws, see ? There is ample legal precedence, as far as Chicago and gun laws that were overturned in Court as Unconstitutional as a State Right ? No a State power and the Feds said no way !!!! Washington D.C., not a State, lost the fight as far as Gun laws affecting law abiding people's Rights, Felons are still prohibited from Firearms, as well as other prohibited people.
Smartie, obviously. Fooli is fun to try and decode. Apacherat, Freshair, CupAsoup, our Ragin Cajun moderator, Cubed, Falena. Dairyair is intelligent and often puts me in my place. Andrew Jackson is my political rival, but forum friend. Those are just off the top of my head. Most posters here are good people. I only recall having one person on my ignore list.
Dennis Tate for entertainment. Didreo Te and FoxHastings for comraderie. SallyAllie,Pax Aeon and Renee for the standard fantasy play mind f#ck. Army Soldier for aggravated forced thought. HereWeGoAgain for online sci-fi novel reading. dairyair for cuteness fixation. Ritter for asseninity inundation. Channe and Peppermint twist just ....because.
Asseninity Assen-en-inty pronoun/verb The use of incomprehensible terminology to confuse rather than clarify. Stating incoherent verbiage in written form. *Gobbledegook* John was limited to asseninity in his reply.
Ah, thanks. Twas a term I had never ever heard before and my dictionary claimed the word does not even exist. I cannot recall ever debating you or reading any of your posts, so my comments on you will have to wait.
I've always thought that Stuart Wolfe's posts are well thought out and objective. I also think that Mello Guy, Zhivago, Bowerbird, Aphotic, AFM, FoxHastings, PepermintTwist and PARTIZAN1 are my fav's because I believe we are all mostly on the same page. On the conservative side, my fav's are Robert who I think is a gentleman and listens to reason and Steve N, who while we disagree 99% of the time on most things, I believe he is honest and is passionate about what he believes in so you have to respect that. The others for the most part i get along with; those whom are only out to insult me or others are on my ignore list.
The joke went way over my head. Thought it might've been some pop cultural reference or something. I cannot even figure out the joke even with the definition. I mean, is there some sort of clever wordplay or obvious etymology that I cannot see?
I made up the terminology to highlight the unique qualities found in some of your posts and express my admiration for the imaginative technique.
I was just looking through some old postings, and came across this one by @btthegreat Here is a poster with whom I often disagree, however, has the integrity to recognize his own flaws when he has them, admit them, and actually modify his beliefs. So rare is this here at PF. In this posting, he said he learned something, that he realized he may have been mistaken, and he changed his position based on new information he didn't previously have. I think we could all learn something about integrity and truth-seeking from @btthegreat
Thank-you. This was a long time ago. I had actually forgotten where this dialogue was, but I recall vividly that it 'moved my needle' and I wanted to refresh it in my mind. I will update the result of this. I still believe that the argument you endorsed what the original intent was, is very credible so the needle has stayed moved. I do not fault appellate rulings in favor of this 'individual right' interpretation or make claims about what that clause means or modifies. I no longer make any constitutional claims regarding any interpretation of the second. I could instead make a different argument about whether original intent should be the sole litmus test of interpretation. Rather, I than get into that quicksand, I just avoid the constitutional questions entirely. LOL, instead, I wish we were rid of the damn amendment entirely and then leave this matter for states to regulate, but that is never happening. Its a whole other argument to persuade me that we are getting a net good from its existence.
No question that the best posters on this forum are those who are politically progressive. They always demonstrate vastly superior knowledge of every subject and present their arguments with logic and reason. This unlike the right wingers who are emotional and irrational. When the right wingers are defeated they always resort to hate and name calling because they simply cannot begin to engage in a reasoned debate with the more patriotic progressives. It is a great pleasure and privilege to exchange ideas with these highly intellectual patriots who are lovers of freedom and justice.
Liberals think if you tell a lie long enough people will believe it. Actually they are just preaching to the quire with itching ears to hear what they want to hear. Of course I seldom get along with either because I'm anti-illegal wars and can't vote fro a man just because he claims to be Republican. I'm more on the Independent side I guess ' meaning I don't know of any of them I'd vote for '. I think JFK was out last president although with fault he at least seemed to be more patriotic than anyone since.
I think this is just confirmation bias, tbh. In my experience, there are both good- and bad debaters on both sides. Being on the Right myself, I often go into discussions with the Left (for obvious reasons) and thus I have no clear opinion of the ones on the Right other than a select few (who I find very reasonable). Many of these Left-Wingers are good conversation partners, but there are some imbeciles too. Since Right-Wingers tend to agree with me, the only ones who have ever thrown personal attacks and built strawmen on me are the ones on the Left. So, I guess it depends on where you stand. I have upset a few "Right Wing" Republicans though and of that I am proud. You think it is a pleasure to share ideas with people who agree with you? Guess people are different. I myself am here to talk the people who disagree with me to get som perspective and learn new stuff.
You must be on a different board than I am....... The liberals around here are not lovers of freedom and justice.
it is the forum right wingers who support criminally racist government cops and the ever expanding government in the form of the Pentagon and military industrial complex - I suggest you read what is actually posted here so you can see for yourself
