# What in the world is this all about (TEXAS HCR 50) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 25, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-in-the-world-is-this-all-about-texas-hcr-50/504252 "2009-07-25T22:04:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-in-the-world-is-this-all-about-texas-hcr-50/504252/81 "2009-07-27T18:47:33Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I am talking about the thrust of this thread. Bullshit. You **clearly** addressed that to me directly, suggesting I was engaged in making fun of identity… [QUOTE=mswas] You’re just trying to invent a mistake because it’s more about identity and making fun of identity than it is for you to actually address the substance of the issue. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-in-the-world-is-this-all-about-texas-hcr-50/504252/82 "2009-07-27T18:55:15Z")
States’ Rights Are Being Trampled On = The Other Guys Are In Charge ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-in-the-world-is-this-all-about-texas-hcr-50/504252/83 "2009-07-27T18:55:49Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Or it means that California physicians have the right to prescribe medical marijuana without federal agents enforcing laws against the local jurisdiction. Yeah, Medical Marijuana is one of the minor causes. Guns For Everybody is another–& more popular. Who funds the [Tenth Amendment Center](http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/)? I was able to find a statement on their Donations page that indicates it began in January 2007. However, there is no other information on the history of this illustrious organization. No Directors or any other supporters are listed on the website. Find me more information on these people. Who are they? Are they Grassroots or Astroturf? How much of their funding comes from the Health Insurance Companies? Sourcewatch doesn’t have anything. Yet. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-in-the-world-is-this-all-about-texas-hcr-50/504252/84 "2009-07-27T19:02:02Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Bullshit. You **clearly** addressed that to me directly, suggesting I was engaged in making fun of identity… Clearly that’s what it’s about for you. ‘Those people calling it states rights are stupid.’ You are much more fascinated by your semantic nitpick which was received and understood than yuo are about the actual issue. It shows the depth of your commitment to the discussion. Why should I pretend that what your doing is anything other than what it is? Your entire argument is ‘Huh huh conservatives are illiterate.’ ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-in-the-world-is-this-all-about-texas-hcr-50/504252/85 "2009-07-27T19:03:29Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Yeah, Medical Marijuana is one of the minor causes. Guns For Everybody is another–& more popular. It’s not a minor issue to me. I also believe that individuals have the right to own small arms. > [@](#): > > Find me more information on these people. Who are they? Are they Grassroots or Astroturf? How much of their funding comes from the Health Insurance Companies? > > Sourcewatch doesn’t have anything. Yet. It’s an interesting question. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-in-the-world-is-this-all-about-texas-hcr-50/504252/86 "2009-07-27T21:00:27Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Clearly that’s what it’s about for you. ‘Those people calling it states rights are stupid.’ > > You are much more fascinated by your semantic nitpick which was received and understood than yuo are about the actual issue. It shows the depth of your commitment to the discussion. Why should I pretend that what your doing is anything other than what it is? > > Your entire argument is ‘Huh huh conservatives are illiterate.’ Make your mind up. When I first called you on it, you weren’t talking about me, you were talking about the thread in general. Now you are saying I am attacking conservatives. What confuses me, is despite never mentioning conservatives in my posts, you get to determine my intention is to attack conservatives. Also, despite me repeatedly stating why I think the language used is important, arguments which you then accepted held some validity, what I am doing is merely a “semantic nitpick.” As I have said repeatedly, the language is of central importance. I won’t bother to argue abortion with someone who refers to me as a bay killer, because it is pointless. Similarly, someone who admits that calling powers rights is wrong, but does it anyway, is probably doing it because they wish to attach extra importance on those issues. Personally, I do think the federal government has overstepped its bounds. However, I think it does so in particular with respect to individuals, and also internally, to the degree the legislature has abandoned much of its power to the executive. Generally speaking, I find the people who whine the loudest about “states’ rights” are most willing to piss on individual rights, quite happy to support the surrender of the powers of the legislature to the executive (especially when it is an executive of a particular hue) and are most concerned with the rights of states to trample on the individual rights of their own citizens without interference from teh federal government, even when the United States Constitution makes clear such issues are of federal concern. So there is another way the langauge is important. It serves as a pretty good signal of the intent of the speaker, in many cases. And no, “states’ rights” or states’ powers, are not the same thing as Separation of Powers. Because when people focus on the states only, they ignore the big violations of Separations of Powers that have occurred on an ongoing basis for many years, under both parties. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-in-the-world-is-this-all-about-texas-hcr-50/504252/87 "2009-07-27T21:08:12Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Also, despite me repeatedly stating why I think the language used is important, arguments which you then accepted held some validity, what I am doing is merely a “semantic nitpick.” I agree with you, but there is a point where semantic arguments serve to cloud the issue more than clarify it. As I said, I understood the point you were making the first time you made it. > [@](#): > > As I have said repeatedly, the language is of central importance. I won’t bother to argue abortion with someone who refers to me as a bay killer, because it is pointless. Similarly, someone who admits that calling powers rights is wrong, but does it anyway, is probably doing it because they wish to attach extra importance on those issues. For me, it’s not a personal desire to make it sound more important than it is, it’s that I think the Federal government needs to be scaled back in favor of state powers. I just use the term, “States Rights”, because it’s effective shorthand. > [@](#): > > Personally, I do think the federal government has overstepped its bounds. However, I think it does so in particular with respect to individuals, and also internally, to the degree the legislature has abandoned much of its power to the executive. I agree. > [@](#): > > Generally speaking, I find the people who whine the loudest about “states’ rights” are most willing to piss on individual rights, quite happy to support the surrender of the powers of the legislature to the executive (especially when it is an executive of a particular hue) and are most concerned with the rights of states to trample on the individual rights of their own citizens without interference from teh federal government, even when the United States Constitution makes clear such issues are of federal concern. I don’t think there is much utility in this line of thinking because it cuts both ways. People are all about state’s powers when it’s medical marijuana in California and the Fed is arresting grannies, but not when it is abortion or gun rights. The point being that it all goes hand in hand. An overreaching Fed takes away your AR-15 and your Joint. > [@](#): > > So there is another way the langauge is important. It serves as a pretty good signal of the intent of the speaker, in many cases. And no, “states’ rights” or states’ powers, are not the same thing as Separation of Powers. Because when people focus on the states only, they ignore the big violations of Separations of Powers that have occurred on an ongoing basis for many years, under both parties. Yes, but that’s the debate that should be had. You’re slowly getting into it, but you are still harping on what ‘types of people’ believe. Instead of harping on the idea that certain people are being hypocrites maybe if we were more willing to dive right into the issue it would be more germane to the health of the Republic. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-in-the-world-is-this-all-about-texas-hcr-50/504252/88 "2009-07-27T21:45:21Z")
Let Texans vote to determine whether they wish to remain in the Union. ---
**Author:** ![Skylark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Skylark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skylark)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-in-the-world-is-this-all-about-texas-hcr-50/504252/89 "2009-07-27T23:33:14Z")
> [@Spiff](#): > > That, and don’t forget that _states’ rights_ is code for _keep the darkie down_ as elaborated in the GOP’s Southern Strategy. I thought they settled that states’ rights thing a century and a half ago. States lost. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-in-the-world-is-this-all-about-texas-hcr-50/504252.md?page=4)