That’s one of mine from childhood. A babysitter introduced me to toasted peanut butter and bacon sandwiches and I was shocked at how good they were. I literally haven’t had one in maybe 35 years and I’m not particularly hankering for them now. But they were mighty tasty.
Meat and peanut butter go well together - I remember being similarly surprised when an African history professor introduced me to a simple and cheap maafe made with canned tomatoes, peanut butter and some cheap beef. At the time it sounded weird to my teenage American ears, but of course it works very well.
I thought @Bricker was often full of shit when it came to defending some point where his philosophy overtook the legal realities but at least he was generally smart and self-aware enough to pivot away when he was caught in a legal paradox. @UltraVires just doubles down on his nonsense. I guess at least he’s committed…or maybe he should be committed. Either way, it’s an ethos, I suppose.
It occurs to me that we can resolve the pineapple pizza controversy by asking the opinion of the esteemed subject of this thread, who seems to have an uncanny knack for being reliably wrong about everything. It’s actually a valuable skill that can be used (in reverse) to establish important truths.
So if, for example, he comes out against pineapple on pizza, I will have to concede defeat, and henceforth order pineapple on every pizza.
But if, as I suspect, he’s all in favour if it, then you pineapple-heads will all look like fools! Fools, I tell you! Perhaps he will also opine that pineapple on pizza is best in combination with strawberries, chocolate chips, sardines, and some pickled herring and sour cream – the ideal pizza toppings for balanced flavour.
I believe the OP is from the south somewhere. As a lifelong resident and pizza enjoyer of the Chicago area, I am even less interested in hearing that poster’s ideas about pizza than I am in hearing their ideas about the law.
He’ll probably say that he has ‘friends’ who hate pineapple pizza because they think Hawaiians are subhumans, but do we have any cogent arguments he might be able to use to convince them otherwise?
I never asked for a cite explaining a state’s constitutional right to pass whatever law they choose. That’s not in question. States can pass whatever fucked up laws they want.
Let’s go back to UV’s post that kicked off the whole back-and-forth in that thread:
All good answers, but typically states can get around extra-territory restrictions by defining the crime as that which happened in their own jurisdiction. To use the thread example, a state could pass the law as leaving the state with the intent to obtain an abortion which would be illegal in the home state.
Then the elements, the intent, the leaving would not have occurred in another state, but all of the criminal acts would have occurred in the home state where the home state has jurisdiction.
(Emphasis mine.)
Please note his use of the word, “typically”. That’s what I asked him to cite. He can’t, because it isn’t typical. In fact it’s so untypical, interstate crime has been left exclusively to the Feds up to this point in time, so far as I know.
Instead of simply admitting that states have not “typically” passed such laws, he tries to shift the burden of proof to others to show that such laws can’t be passed. That’s an entirely different discussion, and it does not in any way answer his original assertion.
