Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 01-15-2018, 08:53 PM
octopus octopus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramira View Post
Very strange.... no 'assumptions' were made, only observation. The passionate story is the very definition of the partians, "a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person."
The parallels between the party of today and the church of the medieval era are striking.
  #102  
Old 01-18-2018, 10:11 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The Democrats are the big tent party and have been for decades now. Anyone is welcome to be an equal member of the Democratic Party.

But equality isn't enough for some people. They insist that they should be recognized as being better than other people. Those people are going to be happier in the Republican Party.

If you believe men are better than women, join the Republican Party.
If you believe white people are better than non-white people, join the Republican Party.
If you believe people who were born in America are better than people who are naturalized citizens, join the Republican Party.
If you believe religious people are better than atheists, join the Republican Party.
If you believe people whose ancestors came from Europe are better than people whose ancestors came from somewhere else, join the Republican Party.
If you believe rich people are better than non-rich people, join the Republican Party.
If you believe people who live in the country are better than people who live in a city, join the Republican Party.
If you believe Christians are better than people from other religions, join the Republican Party.
If you believe people who speak English are better than people who speak another language, join the Republican Party.
If you believe straight people are better than gay people, join the Republican Party.

If you believe all Americans are equal, join the Democratic Party.

If you believe a fetus has no moral value, join the Democratic party.
If you believe that guns aren't really a constitutional right and shouldn't be treated like a constitutional right, join the Democratic party.
If you believe that the American government should place the interests of the global community at par with the interests of American citizens then join the Democratic party.
If you believe that our policies should be focused on black and Hispanic rights rather than merit, join the Democratic party.
If you believe that being a housewife is what you do when you can't get a job or if you're a meek submissive woman, join the Democratic party.
If you believe that people who live in the city are better than people who live in the country, join the Democratic party.
If you think that religious freedom is not a real thing (or at least shouldn't be), then join the Democratic party
  #103  
Old 01-18-2018, 10:17 AM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
If you believe a fetus has no moral value, join the Democratic party.
If you believe that guns aren't really a constitutional right and shouldn't be treated like a constitutional right, join the Democratic party.
If you believe that the American government should place the interests of the global community at par with the interests of American citizens then join the Democratic party.
If you believe that our policies should be focused on black and Hispanic rights rather than merit, join the Democratic party.
If you believe that being a housewife is what you do when you can't get a job or if you're a meek submissive woman, join the Democratic party.
If you believe that people who live in the city are better than people who live in the country, join the Democratic party.
If you think that religious freedom is not a real thing (or at least shouldn't be), then join the Democratic party
Careful. With all that straw lying about, it could create quite a fire hazard.

Remember, only *you* can prevent forest fires (and laughably bad mis-characterizations of your opponents positions)
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #104  
Old 01-18-2018, 10:18 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Thatís ridiculous.
I think he's saying that Republicans are racist, bigot, sexist, theocratic, plutocratic, corporatists. There are probably more of any these in the Republican party than in the Democratic party.
  #105  
Old 01-18-2018, 10:38 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Hey, I was on your side. It was claimed there was only one person who wanted a gun, I pointed out that there were 6 plaintiffs.

Question, given the number of people who requested the permit, is that enough to vote in people that would loosen gun laws? If so, why didn't they do that? If not, then how is that not the minority forcing their view upon the majority?
Because when it comes to constitutional rights, the will of the majority ought to be irrelevant. The will of the majority in the South wanted to keep segregation and other Jim Crow laws.

Quote:
Keep in mind, too, that the heller decision did not apply only to DC. It effectively prohibited any city from making any laws about possession and carrying of guns within their city borders.
Not carrying just owning. And there is still a lot o room for making laws about owning too. See registration process for owning a handgun in DC.
  #106  
Old 01-18-2018, 10:48 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I was just pointing out he number of plaintiffs that brought the suit.

Exactly, it was the wishes of the electorate.


Do you have to get gay married? Do you have to go to a gay wedding? Do you have to hang out with gay married couples? Is there anything at all in your life that is actually affected by other people having the rights to marry? When gay marriage results in 11,208 homicides in a year, then you can make that comparison. Gay marriage is not forced on you, people carrying guns in public are.
Tell hat to the Colorado baker.

Quote:
The right to have a handgun in your house or rifle without a trigger lock or gun safe is not explicitly laid out in the constitution. It required interpretation and a bit of that penumbra stuff to make that call.
What penumbra stuff? I don't recall penumbra being mentioned in Heller, can you cite? Because I am pretty sure that the right to keep and bear arms is pretty explicitly mentioned in the constitution. The fact that some interpretation is required is not the same thing as making up a right out of whole penumbra cloth. I mean we interpret all sorts of rights, like the right to have a lawyer provided to you if you cannot afford one; or the right to burn a flag; or the exclusionary rule for evidence obtained without a warrant.

Quote:
In any case, the guy who financed the suit (who doesn't live in DC or own a gun) doesn't think it went far enough, he objects to Scalia's language at the end "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms".

It's not good enough that decades of precedent and law were overturned there, but he wants to go further, not restricting guns from felons or mentally ill, take the gun anywhere at all, and sell to or buy anything from anyone. Would you be happier if these views of his were also force upon the majority that does not want them?

And, to get away from the guns argument, as that is a whole different argument altogether, involving conflicting views on constitutional rights that will be confused with everything else, do you agree that the state of Kentucky should be able to tell the city of louisville that it cannot raise its minimum wage? that is the exact thing I am talking about, where people who do not live in a city tell the people who do live in a city how to live.
Should a state be able to tell a city they MUST have minimum wage? That's a bunch of people outside the city telling a bunch of people inside the city how to live.

Quote:
Or, if you prefer, in the North Carolina case, should a state be able to tell a city that it cannot have anti-discrimination laws within its limits? once again, an example of rural values demanding that cities conform to them.
How about when a state tells a locality they must enforce immigration laws or they can't have anti-miscegenation laws. States are sovereign over localities in a way that the federal government is not sovereign over the states. Its pretty close tho.
  #107  
Old 01-18-2018, 11:02 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Are we wandering off the topic into a gun control debate or has the original topic been sufficiently addressed and we've moved on?
I think we are focusing on the gun debate because this is one area where the Democratic tent is too small for its own good. Democrats lose a lot more votes than they gain and they alienate a lot of people who would otherwise be Democrats.

Democrats would lose a shit ton of votes if they started pushing pro-life candidates (I would suggest that they could be come significantly more pro-life than they are now and pick up votes but the base would revolt.
  #108  
Old 01-18-2018, 11:05 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Careful. With all that straw lying about, it could create quite a fire hazard.

Remember, only *you* can prevent forest fires (and laughably bad mis-characterizations of your opponents positions)
What difference do you see between what I wrote and what Little Nemo wrote?

Perhaps you can take that plank out of your eye before you point out the mote in mine.
  #109  
Old 01-18-2018, 11:08 AM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
What difference do you see between what I wrote and what Little Nemo wrote?

Perhaps you can take that plank out of your eye before you point out the mote in mine.
Oh I didn't realize you were a "two wrongs make a right" kind of person.

So as long as someone somewhere has done a bad thing, then that bad thing is A-OK for everyone else to do. Cool.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #110  
Old 01-18-2018, 11:12 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Oh I didn't realize you were a "two wrongs make a right" kind of person.

So as long as someone somewhere has done a bad thing, then that bad thing is A-OK for everyone else to do. Cool.
It was interesting that you chose to direct your reply to him and not the offender that preceded him, but given your politics I didn't find it a great surprise.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-18-2018 at 11:13 AM.
  #111  
Old 01-18-2018, 11:14 AM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It was interesting that you chose to direct your reply to him and not the offender that immediately preceded him, but given your politics I didn't find it a great surprise.
Oh I didn't realize I was required to reply to every post on the board. Was that in the TOS somewhere and I missed it?

Given your politics I'm not surprised with your reply either. You seem to only have issues with those that disagree with you. So I guess we are in a battle of "I know you are but what am I". I don't see that this goes anywhere worthwhile.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #112  
Old 01-18-2018, 11:23 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Oh I didn't realize I was required to reply to every post on the board. Was that in the TOS somewhere and I missed it?

Given your politics I'm not surprised with your reply either. You seem to only have issues with those that disagree with you. So I guess we are in a battle of "I know you are but what am I". I don't see that this goes anywhere worthwhile.
I never claimed you were required. I said I thought it was interesting.
  #113  
Old 01-18-2018, 11:28 AM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I never claimed you were required. I said I thought it was interesting.
Lots of things are interesting in the world these days.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #114  
Old 01-18-2018, 12:03 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Tell hat to the Colorado baker.
Who did he have to get gay married to?
Quote:


What penumbra stuff? I don't recall penumbra being mentioned in Heller, can you cite? Because I am pretty sure that the right to keep and bear arms is pretty explicitly mentioned in the constitution. The fact that some interpretation is required is not the same thing as making up a right out of whole penumbra cloth. I mean we interpret all sorts of rights, like the right to have a lawyer provided to you if you cannot afford one; or the right to burn a flag; or the exclusionary rule for evidence obtained without a warrant.
It does require some level of interpretation, just as any other decision requires interpretation. The right to keep and bear arms may be in the constitution, but the constitution does not explicitly say what types of arms you may keep, nor in what manner those arms are to be kept.

I'm not arguing against the decision itself, though I'm not a fan of it, I am pointing out that the lawsuit was brought by outside parties that could not get what they wanted through legislative means, so instead went through the courts to get the judgement they wanted.

When that sort of thing happens and it favors liberal causes, that's considered judicial activism, "crying to the courts", as some conservative commentators have called it here. When it favors conservative causes, it's considered to be simple straightforward interpretation.



Quote:


Should a state be able to tell a city they MUST have minimum wage? That's a bunch of people outside the city telling a bunch of people inside the city how to live.
That's a good question, and one that could be addressed on many points of interest. The current law says no, and I would agree with that. The state is setting a minimum standard to be followed. I could change my mind if a persuasive argument was made the other way, though.

I think it would be pretty rare that a city desires a lower MW than the state they are in, and that most pushes for statewide MW increases originate from within the urban centers.

But, that is not an answer to the question of should a state forbid a city from having a higher minimum wage, or greater protections for its minority residents.
Quote:

How about when a state tells a locality they must enforce immigration laws
I don't think they can do that. Can a state require a city to enforce federal law?
Quote:
or they can't have anti-miscegenation laws.
Did cities ever have miscegenation laws, or was it states that had them. I ask because I don't know, and a brief bit of research has found no examples, but I seriously doubt that there were any cities that had laws against interracial marriage that were not in line with the state's.

OTOH, as city prior to Loving v Virginia would not have been able to marry interracial couples if they were in a state that had miscegenation laws, even if the people of the city wanted to.
Quote:
States are sovereign over localities in a way that the federal government is not sovereign over the states.
This is true, and it is what I am saying should be addressed.
Quote:
Its pretty close tho.
Not even close, really. A state has far more power over a city than the fed has over a state. For instance, the fed cannot tell a state that it cannot raise its MW, or that it cannot put into place protections against minorities.
  #115  
Old 01-18-2018, 12:48 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 76,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
If you believe that being a housewife is what you do when you can't get a job or if you're a meek submissive woman, join the Democratic party.
Most of your post is nonsense and I'll ignore it. But this one is so disconnected from reality I can't let it pass.

Are you seriously claiming that the Republican party is the party of feminists and that meek submissive women join the Democratic party? Should I cite your own post in which you point out how the Republicans oppose pro-choice?
  #116  
Old 01-18-2018, 02:34 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Oh I didn't realize you were a "two wrongs make a right" kind of person.

So as long as someone somewhere has done a bad thing, then that bad thing is A-OK for everyone else to do. Cool.
Its how you mock those sort of ridiculous posts.

I also notice that you overlooked HIS ridiculous post and zeroed in on mine. This is the sort of selective intellectual honesty that brings up charges of hypocrisy.
  #117  
Old 01-18-2018, 02:35 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Oh I didn't realize I was required to reply to every post on the board. Was that in the TOS somewhere and I missed it?

Given your politics I'm not surprised with your reply either. You seem to only have issues with those that disagree with you. So I guess we are in a battle of "I know you are but what am I". I don't see that this goes anywhere worthwhile.
Both of the lists were on the post you were replying to but you thought mine was straw and you totally overlooked the fucking acres of straw I was responding to. hmmm.
  #118  
Old 01-18-2018, 02:36 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Lots of things are interesting in the world these days.
The selectivity of your response indicates that you aren't really concerned about all the straw at all.
  #119  
Old 01-18-2018, 02:48 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
The selectivity of your response indicates that you aren't really concerned about all the straw at all.
The examples in your post were ridiculous. You should be able to defend your own words on their own merit without immediately going to "but he did it first!". Children don't get away with that kind of reasoning. Adults surely shouldn't either.

I voiced my opinion on your post, as I and anyone else here is free to do. Whatever else you want to assume about my motivations is something that is happening entirely between your ears. Everyone posts selectively here. Everyone. The fact that you point this out only from people you disagree with makes you just as guilty of what you are accusing me of. This is the nature of online debate and its pretty transparent that you are trying to sidestep criticism of your post with the old liberal hypocrisy gambit that was already played out on this message board more than a decade ago.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 01-18-2018 at 02:50 PM.
  #120  
Old 01-18-2018, 02:56 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Who did he have to get gay married to?
Wait. is THAT the point you were trying to make, that no one is forcing you to get gay married?

OK then no one is forcing you to carry a gun in public either.

Problem solved. You're welcome.

Quote:
It does require some level of interpretation, just as any other decision requires interpretation. The right to keep and bear arms may be in the constitution, but the constitution does not explicitly say what types of arms you may keep, nor in what manner those arms are to be kept.

I'm not arguing against the decision itself, though I'm not a fan of it, I am pointing out that the lawsuit was brought by outside parties that could not get what they wanted through legislative means, so instead went through the courts to get the judgement they wanted.

When that sort of thing happens and it favors liberal causes, that's considered judicial activism, "crying to the courts", as some conservative commentators have called it here. When it favors conservative causes, it's considered to be simple straightforward interpretation.
I don't think I've ever accused someone of "crying to the courts"


I'm sure you can find someone out there that does this but when you are addressing gun rights its not a conservative thing. Do you really want gun rights to be a conservative only issue? I mean that's how Democrats have been losing elections in places like Virginia (we're a swing state now).

Quote:
That's a good question, and one that could be addressed on many points of interest. The current law says no, and I would agree with that. The state is setting a minimum standard to be followed. I could change my mind if a persuasive argument was made the other way, though.

I think it would be pretty rare that a city desires a lower MW than the state they are in, and that most pushes for statewide MW increases originate from within the urban centers.

But, that is not an answer to the question of should a state forbid a city from having a higher minimum wage, or greater protections for its minority residents.
Should or can? A state is sovereign over localities. It is this way for a reason. States could have all sorts of policy reasons for wanting a uniform minimum wage. I don't think states should have a transgender bathroom bill at all but lets take another context where I at least agree with the substance and might analytically be similar.

Lets say a state decides that pornography cannot be sold within 100 yards of a school or church. Should they be able to force this rule on the cities as well despite the fact it will be more restrictive in cities than in suburbs because of the population density? You aren't objecting to state supremacy, its the substance of the law you are objecting to.

Quote:
I don't think they can do that. Can a state require a city to enforce federal law?
Why not? I mean they can't do it if the feds prohibit it but if states wanted to round up all the illegals at their police stations for easy pick up by federal authorities, I don't see how you could stop them. I mean illegals consume state funded services so they have a legitimate state interest, its not just junior modding federal laws.

Quote:
Did cities ever have miscegenation laws, or was it states that had them. I ask because I don't know, and a brief bit of research has found no examples, but I seriously doubt that there were any cities that had laws against interracial marriage that were not in line with the state's.
I don't know. I can think of some localities that might pass local laws that are more racist than their states in general.

Even NYC has Staten Island.

But if it makes the hypothetical easier to swallow lets say a locality had sundown laws and the state wanted to eliminate those sundown laws, could they overrule them?

Quote:
OTOH, as city prior to Loving v Virginia would not have been able to marry interracial couples if they were in a state that had miscegenation laws, even if the people of the city wanted to.
Yes localities generally get their authority from the state.

Quote:
This is true, and it is what I am saying should be addressed.
Why? What is the problem?

Quote:
Not even close, really. A state has far more power over a city than the fed has over a state. For instance, the fed cannot tell a state that it cannot raise its MW, or that it cannot put into place protections against minorities.
meh, YMMV.
  #121  
Old 01-18-2018, 02:56 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
This is the sort of selective intellectual honesty that brings up charges of hypocrisy.
No its just someone not willing to actually defend the words they themselves typed by trying to use the liberal hypocrisy card. Either your post had merit on its own, or it did not. That someone else did something first is not an excuse for you to put forth a bad argument. This is just you trying to turn it around to being about me.

Do you really think the Democrats believe that "being a housewife is what you do when you can't get a job or if you're a meek submissive woman"? And that's just one example of the ridiculousness of that post.

Can you actually defend that claim? If not, then what does my response have to do with it?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #122  
Old 01-18-2018, 02:58 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Most of your post is nonsense and I'll ignore it. But this one is so disconnected from reality I can't let it pass.

Are you seriously claiming that the Republican party is the party of feminists and that meek submissive women join the Democratic party? Should I cite your own post in which you point out how the Republicans oppose pro-choice?
You need to learnt o read better and you need to start addressing those uncomfortable issues that you are pushing to the back of your mind right now.

As a Democrat with lots of Republican friends, I can tell you unequivocally, not all Republicans are racist and there are more than a handful of racist bigoted Democrats out there.
  #123  
Old 01-18-2018, 03:02 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
The examples in your post were ridiculous. You should be able to defend your own words on their own merit without immediately going to "but he did it first!". Children don't get away with that kind of reasoning. Adults surely shouldn't either.
Did you miss the part where I said I was mocking the original poster?

That is why the original post is relevant in my response.

I can make at least as much of a defense for anything on my list as the original poster can make for anything on his list.

Quote:
I voiced my opinion on your post, as I and anyone else here is free to do. Whatever else you want to assume about my motivations is something that is happening entirely between your ears. Everyone posts selectively here. Everyone. The fact that you point this out only from people you disagree with makes you just as guilty of what you are accusing me of. This is the nature of online debate and its pretty transparent that you are trying to sidestep criticism of your post with the old liberal hypocrisy gambit that was already played out on this message board more than a decade ago.
Nope. I think you're wrong. When you see two examples of hyperbole in the exact same post and you call out the one that parodies Democrats and don't seem to notice the one that parodies Republicans, you are not objecting to the straw, you are objecting to the content.

And frankly, these are in fact areas where Democrats are not particularly open minded. How many pro-life Democratic politicians are there anyways?
  #124  
Old 01-18-2018, 03:22 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Nope. I think you're wrong. When you see two examples of hyperbole in the exact same post and you call out the one that parodies Democrats and don't seem to notice the one that parodies Republicans, you are not objecting to the straw, you are objecting to the content.

And frankly, these are in fact areas where Democrats are not particularly open minded. How many pro-life Democratic politicians are there anyways?
Since you keep trying to make this discussion about me, rather than your own arguments, I'm inclined to refrain from participating in this side track further since I think this is now becoming detrimental to the discussion in this thread. I stated that your examples were ridiculous, and I stand by that. The fact is I was not participating in this thread prior to your post that I replied to. You seem to be saying that the fact that I didn't go back in time and reply to his first, before I entered the thread, that I'm not allowed to reply to yours either.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #125  
Old 01-18-2018, 04:05 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Wait. is THAT the point you were trying to make, that no one is forcing you to get gay married?
No, I was responding to the point you were trying to make, that gay marriage was somehow being forced upon people. The Colorado baker was not forced to do anything gay, he was just asked to make a cake, as was he was in business to do.
Quote:
OK then no one is forcing you to carry a gun in public either.

Problem solved. You're welcome.
Are you trying to say that having a gay married couple in public can get you killed if one of the couple accidentally discharges their gayness at you?

If not, then your rebuttal carries no weight.

In any case, I did say that I wanted to get away from guns in this, as that is a whole different issue, dealing with rights that are not as well defined in the constitution as many 2nd amendment people like to think. If the constitution actually said, "And the right for an individual to own and carry a handgun, rifle, or shotgun in a manner of his or her choosing, shall not be infringed", then it would be straightforward, and the nation, the state, nor the cities could pass laws against it.

As it's a bit more nebulous, a bit of interpretation is necessary.
Quote:


I don't think I've ever accused someone of "crying to the courts"
In those words, no, and I don't remember your posting history perfectly, but if you have ever accused a judge of being an activist judge for making a ruling that you did not like, then that is essentially what you are saying. The fact that it was a difference conservative commentator that actually articulated that complaint doesn't make it invalid to any commentators who complain about the validity of court rulings.

There are court rulings I disagree with, like the aforementioned Heller, but I do not fault the system that brought about that decision, only wish to bring up arguments that may find such poor, IMHO, decisions revisited.

Quote:

I'm sure you can find someone out there that does this but when you are addressing gun rights its not a conservative thing. Do you really want gun rights to be a conservative only issue? I mean that's how Democrats have been losing elections in places like Virginia (we're a swing state now).
I don't think that gun rights should be a conservative or a liberal issue, and that has nothing to do with what I said.

What I do think is that urban areas are different in many ways than rural areas, and as such, the rural areas should not force the cities to conform to gun laws that make sense in low populated areas, where help is far away and there are occasionally dangerous animals to deal with, but not in densely populated areas, where help is much closer at hand, and wildlife is unlikely to cuase you harm.

To force cities to adopt standards that only make sense in rural areas is what I am talking about. If a city wants to have tighter gun laws because living in a city is a completely different experience than living in the country, why are they prevented from doing so by the people that don't live in the city?
Quote:

Should or can? A state is sovereign over localities. It is this way for a reason. States could have all sorts of policy reasons for wanting a uniform minimum wage. I don't think states should have a transgender bathroom bill at all but lets take another context where I at least agree with the substance and might analytically be similar.
I get that that is the way it is. I disagree that that is the way it should be. What interest does the guy living in a little town in rural kentucky care if Louisville raises it's MW? I get that a state may make a policy reason to ensure uniformity, I disagree that they should.
Quote:
Lets say a state decides that pornography cannot be sold within 100 yards of a school or church. Should they be able to force this rule on the cities as well despite the fact it will be more restrictive in cities than in suburbs because of the population density? You aren't objecting to state supremacy, its the substance of the law you are objecting to.
That's another good point. States shouldn't really have that power over cities either. And, as this is just a random example law you thought up, I would say that it is the state's supremacy that I am objecting to, not the substance of this randomly chosen hypothetical law.

Lets say, for example, that they state wants to ban pornography in cities, but can't really pass that law specifically. So they pass a law as you said, but say extend it to 1000 yards, with the knowledge that there is no where in the city that is more than 1000 yards from a school or church (or playground, childcare et al.). Yeah, that is the specific thing that I am talking about, people outside of the city dictating what happens inside the city.
Quote:

Why not? I mean they can't do it if the feds prohibit it but if states wanted to round up all the illegals at their police stations for easy pick up by federal authorities, I don't see how you could stop them. I mean illegals consume state funded services so they have a legitimate state interest, its not just junior modding federal laws.
If the state wants to pick up undocumented immigrants, and has the authority to do so, then the cities won't stop them, though I would disagree with eh state's decision there, they could do that.

If the state requires that cities expend their law enforcement resources on enforcing federal laws, that is a different matter altogether.
Quote:


I don't know. I can think of some localities that might pass local laws that are more racist than their states in general.

Even NYC has Staten Island.

But if it makes the hypothetical easier to swallow lets say a locality had sundown laws and the state wanted to eliminate those sundown laws, could they overrule them?
Antidiscrimination rights don't come from the constitution, they come from federal law.

If a city has sundown laws, it is not the state that would be overruling them.
Quote:


Yes localities generally get their authority from the state.
Aware of that.
Quote:


Why? What is the problem?
For the specific reasons that I have been arguing here. That is lets rural areas dictate what happens in urban areas.
Quote:

meh, YMMV.
Not sure how you get a YMMV when you claim that there is little difference between the power of fed vs state, and the power of state vs city. It is a very obvious and objective difference.
  #126  
Old 01-18-2018, 04:18 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... To force cities to adopt standards that only make sense in rural areas is what I am talking about. If a city wants to have tighter gun laws because living in a city is a completely different experience than living in the country, why are they prevented from doing so by the people that don't live in the city? ...
The doctrine is known as "incorporation"

Quote:
Incorporation, in U.S. law, is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. When it was first ratified, the Bill of Rights only protected the rights it enumerated from federal infringement, allowing states and local governments to abridge them. However, beginning in 1897 with Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago, various portions have been held to be incorporated against state and local government through the Fourteenth Amendment.
  #127  
Old 01-18-2018, 04:57 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The doctrine is known as "incorporation"
Yes, I am aware of that.

That has nothing to do with anything I said.

For one, I did say on a few occasions that I wanted to get off of guns, as the controversy over gun rights in general clouds the issue of rights of cities vs urban areas, so everytime it comes back to the issue of guns, it pretty much means that you have been ignoring everything that I said.

If we need to keep bringing things back to guns, and ignore the fact that the controversy over them overshadows what I am talking about, lets say that heller was decided slightly differently, instead of 5-4 split on forcing cities to accept guns within their limits without any ability to regulate them, the split had gone the other way.

Now, since, in this hypothetical, we are not talking about rights that are decided by the supreme court, do you think that Illinois state should be able to force Chicago to conform its gun laws to the state laws?
  #128  
Old 01-18-2018, 05:20 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... Now, since, in this hypothetical, we are not talking about rights that are decided by the supreme court, do you think that Illinois state should be able to force Chicago to conform its gun laws to the state laws?
Yes. I think state governments should have the power to trump local laws. I also think it's best if they use that power sparingly.
  #129  
Old 01-18-2018, 05:32 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yes. I think state governments should have the power to trump local laws. I also think it's best if they use that power sparingly.
Well, that is directly to my point that those who do not live in the city get to dictate to those who do live in the city how to live.

Why does it matter to someone who doesn't live in a city what goes on in that city? Why should the person who doesn't live in a city get to make rules for those who do?

The people in rural areas complain that urban people don't understand them, that they don't understand what the rural areas need. Why do the rural people think that they understand what urban people need?
  #130  
Old 01-18-2018, 05:42 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... Why does it matter to someone who doesn't live in a city what goes on in that city? ...
Sometimes I see poor oppressed minorities in cities and my heart wells up with pity for them. I'm so overcome with sympathy, that I just want their oppression to stop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... Why should the person who doesn't live in a city get to make rules for those who do? ...
Because that's what we agreed to. For example, the Utah Constitution says:

Quote:
The Legislature by statute shall provide for the incorporation, organization, and dissolution of cities and towns and for their classification in proportion to population. Any incorporated city or town may frame and adopt a charter for its own government in the following manner:

...

Each city forming its charter under this section shall have, and is hereby granted, the authority to exercise all powers relating to municipal affairs, and to adopt and enforce within its limits, local police, sanitary and similar regulations not in conflict with the general law ...
How does your state do it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... The people in rural areas complain that urban people don't understand them, that they don't understand what the rural areas need. Why do the rural people think that they understand what urban people need?
I'm a local control fanboy. Reagan said:

Quote:
Our Founding Fathers devised a system of government unique in all the world – a federation of sovereign States, with as much law and decision-making authority as possible kept at the local level.
I like local government having more power. I wish the feds would back off, and the states would back off the counties, and the counties back off the cities.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-18-2018 at 05:47 PM.
  #131  
Old 01-18-2018, 05:50 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,190
and that the cities would back off the families and individuals.
  #132  
Old 01-18-2018, 06:01 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 76,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
You need to learnt o read better and you need to start addressing those uncomfortable issues that you are pushing to the back of your mind right now.

As a Democrat with lots of Republican friends, I can tell you unequivocally, not all Republicans are racist and there are more than a handful of racist bigoted Democrats out there.
I read quite well, thank you. Enough so to see that several of the examples you gave of "problems" with the Democratic party just confirm what I have said; a lot of Republicans consider themselves better than other people and resent being treated as equals.
  #133  
Old 01-18-2018, 06:07 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Sometimes I see poor oppressed minorities in cities and my heart wells up with pity for them. I'm so overcome with sympathy, that I just want their oppression to stop.
By not allowing the city to pass protections for minorities? What oppression are we talking about here?
Quote:

Because that's what we agreed to. For example, the Utah Constitution says:
I get that that is how it is, I am just saying that it either shouldn't be that way, or at least, those who live in rural areas and dictate what happens in cities should stop complaining that their voice isn't heard.
Quote:
How does your state do it?
Similarly, though in Ohio, cities doe have a bit more plenary power than they do in some other states. In Ohio, a city can pass a law protecting minorities from discrimination or raising minimum wage without the state preventing them from doing so. (I think, anyway, IANAL, and all that)
Quote:


I'm a local control fanboy. Reagan said:



I like local government having more power. I wish the feds would back off, and the states would back off the counties, and the counties back off the cities.
I like having local power too. I like the fact that my vote actually matters when it comes to things like getting my street plowed, what kind of municipal income tax I am assessed, what rights we afford residents of our city, what kind of pay should be required for employers in the city, stuff like that. When it comes to those matters, my vote counts thousands of times more than it does for the state, and nearly millions of times more than it does for the nation. (Though, being in Ohio, a swing state, my vote for president is actually far more powerful than that of at least 43 other states.)

I wouldn't mind being able to establish gun laws and restrictions as to the manner of owning and carrying within city limits, but that's off the table since the heller. (Not that there would be much traction there, keep in mind, I do live in conservative land.)

States I've always kind of thought of as an odd level of government. Not responsible to individual needs as a local government is, but not capable of big works like the fed is. It really does come down to more of an arbitrary administrative district more than anything else.

And what do you think of when you think of a city? Do you think skyscrapers and hundreds of thousands if not millions all scurrying about? That may be apart of the problem with rural people, they don't actually understand what city is. My city has a bit under 10,000 residents. Most cities are not huge built up urban areas.
  #134  
Old 01-18-2018, 06:19 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
By not allowing the city to pass protections for minorities? What oppression are we talking about here?
Well, magazine capacity limits and carry restrictions were the things I was thinking of, but I'm trying to respect your wishes to move away from the perennial hotbutton topic of guns, so let's go with something else. Maybe forcing bakers to bake cakes for people they don't want to. Those poor oppressed cake bakers have my sympathy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... I like having local power too. I like the fact that my vote actually matters when it comes to things like getting my street plowed, what kind of municipal income tax I am assessed, what rights we afford residents of our city, what kind of pay should be required for employers in the city, stuff like that.
I'm glad we agree on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
(Though, being in Ohio, a swing state, my vote for president is actually far more powerful than that of at least 43 other states.)
OH looked a whole lot less swing-statey this last election.


Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... And what do you think of when you think of a city? Do you think skyscrapers and hundreds of thousands if not millions all scurrying about? That may be apart of the problem with rural people, they don't actually understand what city is. My city has a bit under 10,000 residents. Most cities are not huge built up urban areas.
This paragraph makes me think that you're under the impression I live somewhere rural. I don't. I live in the suburbs of Salt Lake City. I've lived in various other large and medium-sized cities at different times in my life (as well as having spent some time in some really sparsely-populated rural areas).

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-18-2018 at 06:19 PM.
  #135  
Old 01-19-2018, 10:39 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Maybe forcing bakers to bake cakes for people they don't want to. Those poor oppressed cake bakers have my sympathy.
They don't have my sympathy. They opened to the public, and part of being open to the public is not discriminating. They aren't forced to make cakes, they chose to make cakes. What they are not allowed to do is to say that someone may not get a cake because they don't like something about the customer that is a protected class.

Quote:


I'm glad we agree on this.
Well, dogs and cats, living together...

Anyway, point being, smaller areas are better at serving the needs of their people than larger areas are. As the population and geography get larger and more diverse, it become harder to find ways of creating laws that properly accommodate all the needs and desires of the people represented.

Having a large federal sized behemoth to ensure that the most basic of rights are enforced is very useful, as smaller bits may not have the resources or the will to do so. But smaller "rights" that smaller demographics choose to grant to themselves should be respected on that local level.
Quote:

OH looked a whole lot less swing-statey this last election.
Still, a whole lot more swingy than about 43 others. Ohio being THE swing state is quite likely to happen again. What are the chances of Utah swinging the next one?
Quote:



This paragraph makes me think that you're under the impression I live somewhere rural. I don't. I live in the suburbs of Salt Lake City. I've lived in various other large and medium-sized cities at different times in my life (as well as having spent some time in some really sparsely-populated rural areas).
I actually had no idea what kind of life you were living. I did assume a bit more rural. I grew up in subdivisions completely surrounded by farms(my father sold agricultural equipment). Most of them are developed now. Where I am sitting right now was a farm less than 20 years ago.
  #136  
Old 01-19-2018, 02:44 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... What they are not allowed to do is to say that someone may not get a cake because they don't like something about the customer that is a protected class. ...
I believe the Supreme Court is currently in the process of deciding whether they are allowed to or not. We'll see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... Having a large federal sized behemoth to ensure that the most basic of rights are enforced is very useful ...
The basic problem we have is agreeing on what those "most basic of rights" are. For some poeple, it means 30-round mags, for others, it means partial-birth abortions, for others, it's not being forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. That is, I think, where much of the conflict comes from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Still, a whole lot more swingy than about 43 others. Ohio being THE swing state is quite likely to happen again.
I'm curious why you've settled on the number 43. This is, IIRC, the second time you've mentioned this figure. What's the source?

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
What are the chances of Utah swinging the next one?
Nil.
  #137  
Old 01-19-2018, 03:39 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I believe the Supreme Court is currently in the process of deciding whether they are allowed to or not. We'll see.
Currently, the law and the courts do say that. SCOTUS may overturn that on appeal, but currently, that is the settled law. But yeah, we'll see if they overturn that and change things from how they currently are here relatively shortly, I guess.
Quote:


The basic problem we have is agreeing on what those "most basic of rights" are. For some poeple, it means 30-round mags, for others, it means partial-birth abortions, for others, it's not being forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. That is, I think, where much of the conflict comes from.
This is true, and it is one of those areas where states rights start to make sense. But, at the same time, state's rights get abused in such a way that minority populations get oppressed by the majority without protections from the federal govt.

But, rather than allowing states to oppress their populations, instead giving them the ability to provide more freedoms would be more ideal. The federal govt protects the right to have fairly specific weapons for self defense and hunting, and states may choose to allow them to have a larger variety of weapons for other purposes. The federal govt protect a woman's right to an abortion for the first 12 weeks, after that, states may be more, but not less, permissive.

As far as the baker goes, that actually was a state law that if overturned, would be overturned by the federal government.

When state's rights were stronger, states used their power to preserve slavery, then jim crow and segregation. It was only by abrogating some of the state's rights that the rights of the actual people living in theme could be assured.
Quote:
I'm curious why you've settled on the number 43. This is, IIRC, the second time you've mentioned this figure. What's the source?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki page, cause I'm too lazy to do primary research right now
Election analytics website FiveThirtyEight identifies the states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin as "perennial" swing states that have regularly seen close contests over the last few presidential campaigns.[3]
Out of those 13, Ohio is significantly bigger than 6 of them, and the other 6 are about the sameish(ish) size. So, yeah, my vote is more powerful than the vote of people in about 43 other states, and certainly much more relevant to the presidential election than 37 of them that will never (never say never) swing.

Plus, and this is more historical trivia than a predictor of the future, but for what it is worth, no Republican has taken office without carrying Ohio.

I also came across that number relatively recently in other places, but I have no idea where atm.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 01-19-2018 at 03:39 PM.
  #138  
Old 01-19-2018, 03:58 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Maybe forcing bakers to bake cakes for people they don't want to. Those poor oppressed cake bakers have my sympathy.
/s, right? Or do you seriously think it's "oppressive" for people who sell goods to the public to be prevented from discriminating against certain customers on ideological grounds?

Are you also cool with, say, lunch counters refusing to sell meals to black customers? Because, y'know, we thought we fixed that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
for others, it's not being forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
Wow, it appears you actually meant it. I repeat: are you also in sympathy with lunch-counter owners who resent being "forced" to make meals for black people?

Last edited by Kimstu; 01-19-2018 at 03:59 PM.
  #139  
Old 01-19-2018, 04:56 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
/s, right? Or do you seriously think it's "oppressive" for people who sell goods to the public to be prevented from discriminating against certain customers on ideological grounds?

Are you also cool with, say, lunch counters refusing to sell meals to black customers? Because, y'know, we thought we fixed that.



Wow, it appears you actually meant it. I repeat: are you also in sympathy with lunch-counter owners who resent being "forced" to make meals for black people?
Perhaps this would be better-suited for another entry in the unpopular opinions thread. I REALLY don't want to turn this into a big derailment of this thread, so please, if you're interested in having a larger discussion on the matter, let's take it to another thread. With that disclaimer out of the way:

Yes, I think it's fair to say that I have a much broader view of (what I will now couch in terms of a Constitutional right) the freedom of assembly than our current federal jurisprudence and legislation does. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:

Quote:
Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
If I were to have my druthers, I think I'd exempt the private sector from the protected class requirements and allow them to give full force to those "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs. At the same time, I would hope and encourage them to not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, national origin, age, sex, etc. but I don't think using the force of government to enforce that on individuals is an appropriate use of government's power. That view is probably somewhat situational, in that I don't feel it's very likely that there would be massive or widespread discrimination in today's economy if, for example, those portions of the CRA were repealed.
  #140  
Old 01-20-2018, 12:03 AM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'd exempt the private sector from the protected class requirements and allow them to give full force to those "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs.
Snip mine.

I'm just going to leave this right here, in case anyone missed it. Nothing more ever needs said regarding you and this topic - that statement encompasses it all.
  #141  
Old 01-20-2018, 10:37 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Perhaps this would be better-suited for another entry in the unpopular opinions thread. I REALLY don't want to turn this into a big derailment of this thread, so please, if you're interested in having a larger discussion on the matter, let's take it to another thread. With that disclaimer out of the way:

Yes, I think it's fair to say that I have a much broader view of (what I will now couch in terms of a Constitutional right) the freedom of assembly than our current federal jurisprudence and legislation does. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:



If I were to have my druthers, I think I'd exempt the private sector from the protected class requirements and allow them to give full force to those "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs. At the same time, I would hope and encourage them to not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, national origin, age, sex, etc. but I don't think using the force of government to enforce that on individuals is an appropriate use of government's power. That view is probably somewhat situational, in that I don't feel it's very likely that there would be massive or widespread discrimination in today's economy if, for example, those portions of the CRA were repealed.
This isn't really a derailment of the thread, in that you have defined a boundary that I would not accept a democrat crossing.

If you held your view for optimistic reasons, that we don't need anti-discrimination laws because there isn't discrimination anymore, then I would disagree with that optimism, but I wouldn't really be able to be upset about it. It is hard for me to get angry at people fro being optimistic.

But, I would disagree with you in that the idea that "no one may be compelled to belong to an association" doesn't mean anything when you have voluntarily put your services into the public sphere. No one can compel someone to bake a cake for them, for any reason at all, unless that person has chosen to open to the public and bake cakes for the public. At that point, the public does have an interest in making sure that those who are using the public resources for their personal gain do so without discriminating against members of the public.

As discrimination is currently fairly widespread in spite of laws against it (it is actually really hard to prove that you didn't hire, or fired, an employee for illegal reasons, and even harder to determine that is the case for clients), and we are not that far removed from times when it was not only open, but encouraged and sometimes even the law, I don't think that we are anywhere near the level where getting rid of the laws will not cuase a fairly immediate and drastic increase of minority abuse.

So, much as you may think this is a derailment, you are right on track here. Your opinion that anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary or even in violation of the UDoHR is one that is irreconcilable. I would consider someone with that view to be well outside of the tent that is the democratic party.

I can accept democrats who are personally anti-abortion, and I can even accept democrats who would allow or even push for legislation limiting elective abortions past 20 weeks, so long as exceptions are allowed for health of the mother and cases where the child is a product of rape or incest, and they don't really touch anything under 12 weeks. (or limit access to contraception and the education to use it properly)

I can accept democrats who are pro-gun. Pretty much anything short of demanding that everyone carry a gun at all times, I don't really care. I may disagree with them on the policies that they would go for, but I wouldn't consider pretty much any reasonable view on guns as being a non-starter.

But, as far as minority protections go, that one's actually pretty important, and a bit of a defining characteristic. I could certainly accept a democrat who looks into tweeking anti-discrimination laws or affirmative action initiatives to achieve more favorable results, but I could not accept a democrat who was willing to remove those protections entirely.
  #142  
Old 01-23-2018, 08:16 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Since you keep trying to make this discussion about me, rather than your own arguments, I'm inclined to refrain from participating in this side track further since I think this is now becoming detrimental to the discussion in this thread. I stated that your examples were ridiculous, and I stand by that. The fact is I was not participating in this thread prior to your post that I replied to. You seem to be saying that the fact that I didn't go back in time and reply to his first, before I entered the thread, that I'm not allowed to reply to yours either.
You didn't need to go back at all. It was right there in the post you were replying to. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...&postcount=102

You are free to make hypocritical statements but you are not immune from criticism for your hypocrisy.

Once again, how many pro-life Democratic politicians are there anyways? I mean Democrats are a big tent party, amirite?
  #143  
Old 01-23-2018, 08:51 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
No, I was responding to the point you were trying to make, that gay marriage was somehow being forced upon people. The Colorado baker was not forced to do anything gay, he was just asked to make a cake, as was he was in business to do.
He is not being asked. He is being forced.

Quote:
Are you trying to say that having a gay married couple in public can get you killed if one of the couple accidentally discharges their gayness at you?
Are you saying that carried concealed carriers increase gun violence? I'd like to see a cite for that. Because imaginary threats from concealed carry permits are about as convincing as the imaginary threats from allowing gay marriage.

Quote:
If not, then your rebuttal carries no weight.
You still have to establish that concealed carry increases violence.

Quote:
In any case, I did say that I wanted to get away from guns in this, as that is a whole different issue, dealing with rights that are not as well defined in the constitution as many 2nd amendment people like to think. If the constitution actually said, "And the right for an individual to own and carry a handgun, rifle, or shotgun in a manner of his or her choosing, shall not be infringed", then it would be straightforward, and the nation, the state, nor the cities could pass laws against it.
Other than the "in a manner of his or her choosing" part, that is basically what the constitution says. The constitution guarantees the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (which the Supreme Court has established includes handguns (and probably shotguns and rifles as well)).

Quote:
As it's a bit more nebulous, a bit of interpretation is necessary.
Not quite as nebulous as the rights that are not even mentioned in the constitution. But yes interpretation is always necessary.

Quote:
In those words, no, and I don't remember your posting history perfectly, but if you have ever accused a judge of being an activist judge for making a ruling that you did not like, then that is essentially what you are saying. The fact that it was a difference conservative commentator that actually articulated that complaint doesn't make it invalid to any commentators who complain about the validity of court rulings.

There are court rulings I disagree with, like the aforementioned Heller, but I do not fault the system that brought about that decision, only wish to bring up arguments that may find such poor, IMHO, decisions revisited.
So, you were objecting to someone else accusing people of crying to the courts? Because I don't think I've ever done what you are saying. The last Supreme Court decisions I disagreed with were Hobby Lobby, Citizens United, Lilly Ledbetter, and the voter ID case. I think you and me are on the same side on all of those.

Quote:
I don't think that gun rights should be a conservative or a liberal issue, and that has nothing to do with what I said.
And yet it has become a liberal conservative issue. The Democratic party platform still pushes for an assault weapons ban.

Quote:
What I do think is that urban areas are different in many ways than rural areas, and as such, the rural areas should not force the cities to conform to gun laws that make sense in low populated areas, where help is far away and there are occasionally dangerous animals to deal with, but not in densely populated areas, where help is much closer at hand, and wildlife is unlikely to cuase you harm.
As long as the urban areas do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, I don't see why they can't have their own rules as long as the state and federal government permit them to do so. But every jurisdiction MUST allow its residents to own guns. Every jurisdiction MUST allow its citizens to carry guns.

Quote:
To force cities to adopt standards that only make sense in rural areas is what I am talking about. If a city wants to have tighter gun laws because living in a city is a completely different experience than living in the country, why are they prevented from doing so by the people that don't live in the city?

I get that that is the way it is. I disagree that that is the way it should be. What interest does the guy living in a little town in rural kentucky care if Louisville raises it's MW? I get that a state may make a policy reason to ensure uniformity, I disagree that they should.

That's another good point. States shouldn't really have that power over cities either. And, as this is just a random example law you thought up, I would say that it is the state's supremacy that I am objecting to, not the substance of this randomly chosen hypothetical law.

Lets say, for example, that they state wants to ban pornography in cities, but can't really pass that law specifically. So they pass a law as you said, but say extend it to 1000 yards, with the knowledge that there is no where in the city that is more than 1000 yards from a school or church (or playground, childcare et al.). Yeah, that is the specific thing that I am talking about, people outside of the city dictating what happens inside the city.

If the state wants to pick up undocumented immigrants, and has the authority to do so, then the cities won't stop them, though I would disagree with eh state's decision there, they could do that.
Can a state prohibit a city from picking up undocumented immigrants? Could it force them to do so?

The state's interest in preserving their policy trumps a city's interest in doing what they want to do. The city is represented in state government in proportion to their population and they can make their argument to the state legislature.

Quote:
If the state requires that cities expend their law enforcement resources on enforcing federal laws, that is a different matter altogether.

Antidiscrimination rights don't come from the constitution, they come from federal law.
Not the one that involves the baker and the gay wedding cake.

Quote:
If a city has sundown laws, it is not the state that would be overruling them.

Aware of that.

For the specific reasons that I have been arguing here. That is lets rural areas dictate what happens in urban areas.
And that is our system. We cannot let cities be independent of their states.

Not sure how you get a YMMV when you claim that there is little difference between the power of fed vs state, and the power of state vs city. It is a very obvious and objective difference.[/QUOTE]

Well, the Fed can in fact tell states that they cannot have a higher minimum wage. The fed can in fact tell states that they cannot have special protections for minorities if it affects interstate commerce or effects reverse discrimination. Federal courts have in fact told states this very thing.
  #144  
Old 01-23-2018, 08:58 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I read quite well, thank you. Enough so to see that several of the examples you gave of "problems" with the Democratic party just confirm what I have said; a lot of Republicans consider themselves better than other people and resent being treated as equals.
I don't think you do. I think your reading is very selective.
  #145  
Old 01-23-2018, 09:08 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 23,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
If you believe that our policies should be focused on black and Hispanic rights rather than merit, join the Democratic party.
Funny, I see civil rights and merit as being completely compatible with each other.

It's Republicans like Jesse Helms with his infamous "Hands" ad that makes people believe that we can't be pro-merit and pro-civil rights at the same time. And we all know what kind of person Jesse Helms was.
  #146  
Old 01-23-2018, 03:37 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 572
Obviously the Democrats are big Tent. They won the popular vote after all. They have big BIG tents, in large cities. Unfortunately, big tent means nothing, at least when it comes to presidential elections. Big geography is king, and dems are too clustered. Obviously gerrymandering comes in play there, but I don't see that being drastically changed anytime soon.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017