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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Because that’s what we agreed to. For example, the Utah Constitution says:
How does your state do it?
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 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.
By not allowing the city to pass protections for minorities? What oppression are we talking about here?
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.
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)
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.
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.
I’m glad we agree on this.
OH looked a whole lot less swing-statey this last election.
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
I believe the Supreme Court is currently in the process of deciding whether they are allowed to or not. We’ll see.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
/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:
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.
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.
/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?