The parallels between the party of today and the church of the medieval era are striking.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Tell hat to the Colorado baker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lots of things are interesting in the world these days.
Who did he have to get gay married to?
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.
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.
I don’t think they can do that. Can a state require a city to enforce federal law?
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.
This is true, and it is what I am saying should be addressed.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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?
Yes localities generally get their authority from the state.
Why? What is the problem?
meh, YMMV.