“Obama’s Waterloo” may very well eclipse “this could be just the break the McCain campaign has been waithing for.” And for this, I am grateful.
Also … Obama’s Waterloo would also be a great album name if he ever recorded a bunch of ABBA covers.
I’m pretty sure the only thing the Ron Paul campaign did was plaster everything with bumper stickers.
Sorry to be boring on this again, but anyone who considers “states’ rights” to be an issue, whether a poster on a message board or Governor of a state demonstrates a lack of understanding of the US political system, under which individuals have rights, and states have powers.
:rolleyes:
And anyone who holds your opinion doesn’t realize that the term, “states rights”, is used to describe the issue by pretty much everyone and that when they talk about rights they are actually talking about powers.
It’s funny how often the pedantic get it so wrong.
The fact that most people are wrong on something doesn’t alter the fact they are wrong on it.
The reason people talk of states’ rights rather than states’ powers is to give some kind of emotional weight to the argument that it does not merit.
And I guess I will take an accusation of pedantry over one of narcissism for pointing out your legal mistake.
Nope, we had pieces of cardboard plastered to light poles with “Ron Paul - 2008” scrawled on em in sharpie-pen too.
They are using the wrong word, but that’s kind of irrelevant to what it’s trying to do.
Yes, it is unique like that as a political issue. :rolleyes:
I didn’t make a legal mistake, learn to fucking read.
That, and don’t forget that states’ rights is code for keep the darkie down as elaborated in the GOP’s Southern Strategy.
:rolleyes: The 70s are calling, they’d like to remind you that there have been three and a half decades since the 60s.
It is very relevant. Using the term “states’ rights” is wrong. The speaker can either be doing it out of ignorance, or deliberately. If doing it deliberately, it is likely they are doing it to attach a greater degree of import to the concept than there would be if the correct term, powers were used. I honestly don’t know whether Governor Perry is ignorant or attempting to manuipulate, but neither are a particularly good thing.
Well you kind of did when you talked about states’ rights.
Does that make Sotomayer his Fernando?
That’s politics, people use words the way they use them, but ultimately everyone who knows anything about it knows that people mean the 10th amendment, so your nitpick just doesn’t have much relevance. Governor Perry knows he is talking about the 10th amendment, and that is what is legally relevant. He is using the term that everyone uses colloquially and has for years.
:rolleyes: By using the term that everyone uses? I know what the term ‘separation of powers’ means. 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.
Nope, that’s no longer current.
The latest flurry of “states’ rights” really means: The Big Insurance Companies hate & fear UHC. You should, too!
Or it means that California physicians have the right to prescribe medical marijuana without federal agents enforcing laws against the local jurisdiction.
Thanks for reminding me that the racism on which the GOP feeds has been around for a long, long time.
That was your point, right?
So you know you are using the incorrect term, and are going to go on using it. Way to fight ignorance there1
And what the living bejeezus are you talking about when you say “making fun of identity”?
Trouble is, what you think is the substance is impacted on by the terminology used. You see, I am more concerned about any level of government impinging on an individual’s rights than I am by one level of the government usurping powers from another level. Rights are just more important to me that way.
:rolleyes:
Maybe I should link you to FinnAgain’s long winded rants about the usage of the term ‘Conspiracy Theory’.
In the world of normalcy people use ‘States Rights’ and it is generally understood that they are talking about the 10th Amendment and the ‘Separation of Powers’, you understand that too.
When people ignore the issue and its merits in order to just make fun of the group they don’t like, in this case conservatives.
Well nice to see you actually discussing the issue rather than mindless pedantry.
I understand your point of view, but law by its very nature imposes itself upon our ability to act as individuals. I think states ‘powers’ are important to consider because we have more power to impact state legislation than Federal, and I would like to see a greater empowerment of the states to enact laws at the state level that better reflect the makeup of that state’s opinion. IE, I think issues like abortion, drug prohibition, prostitution, gambling, blue laws, speed limits, and such should all be decided at the state level. The Federal Government should stick to interstate commerce issues.
How it impacts Federal healthcare I am not certain, and that’s an interesting question. To be honest I really do not understand the healthcare debate very well.
Yes, and in the “world of normalcy” (whatever that may be) people talk about Partial Birth Abortion. It’s important to correct that too. Controlling the language is an important element of framing the debate. Allowing language errors to pass uncorrected cedes ground.
And where precisely did I make fun of conservatives?
You still don’t get it. It isn’t mindless pedantry when the difference between the terms is important. It suits your argument to make the difference irrelevant, but that doesn’t make it so.
Yes, it can be important. But it’s also important to accept the way people are using it and not pretend you don’t get it.
I am talking about the thrust of this thread.
I agree with you up to a point, I argued your position in the conspiracy theory thread, but in this case we both know what is meant, and I doubt that the catchall term that lay people use to describe it is the way the lawyers doing the actual work are fighting it out.