State's Rights

That's not what I am saying. Read Onceler's posts. I have a headache and can't explain this anymore. He has it right.

So you are saying that although the only people in power have not been Libertarians, it is the Libertarians who would have done it all wrong and that guy who shot the kid wouldn't be arrested if they were in charge?

Seriously?
 
So you are saying that although the only people in power have not been Libertarians, it is the Libertarians who would have done it all wrong and that guy who shot the kid wouldn't be arrested if they were in charge?

Seriously?

She isn't saying that, try again.
 
You brought in the other crap, don't pretend to be the victim here, the remark about Cypress was juvenile, the remark about ice dancer just plain mean. You are a dick, live with it.

Go back and read the thread again. The attacks began in the OP.
 
So you are saying that although the only people in power have not been Libertarians, it is the Libertarians who would have done it all wrong and that guy who shot the kid wouldn't be arrested if they were in charge?

Seriously?

No. I was saying this is why the state's rights doctrine doesn't protect minorities, and why blacks, and to a lesser extent women (because white women will often vote in racial rather than gender solidarity) do not vote for parties who espouse them.

Because we have experienced the needed intervention of the federal government too many times.
 
So you are saying that although the only people in power have not been Libertarians, it is the Libertarians who would have done it all wrong and that guy who shot the kid wouldn't be arrested if they were in charge?

Seriously?
of course that's what they're saying. it's Mott's MO for Libertarians, which of course only goes to show his idiocy. it's ridiculous to claim that Libertarians have no power, no voice, and no ability to persuade people of their ideology, yet their ideology is responsible for people not being prosecuted by the feds.
 
No. I was saying this is why the state's rights doctrine doesn't protect minorities, and why blacks, and to a lesser extent women (because white women will often vote in racial rather than gender solidarity) do not vote for parties who espouse them.

Because we have experienced the needed intervention of the federal government too many times.

What you are failing to do is show how the STATE failed. The local investigation isn't even over. How soon should the State intervene in cases? You haven't even given them a chance before proclaiming they failed. All because you want to push your ideology. You could care less about this kid.
 
I'm going to rewrite my OP to reflect what SF actually read. I think this will help everyone understand him better:

It's weird how it's mostly Superfreak who cries about state's rights, and who also fully supports the lynching of blacks, and oh by the way, he hates women too, but he loves sausage - just not browned! Why Superfreak can't attract a white woman is no mystery - cause hey, bitches be crazy! But his insistence that black men should be lynched early and often, has also impacted his ability to attract black women! No one can figure it out!

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that in the year 2012, Superfreak can still lynch a black male and not face state murder charges! And Damo let's him post here!!

DOJ, FBI Opens Investigation Of Trayvon Martin Death

Federal authorities have opened a formal investigation into the death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old black teenager shot by a neighborhood watch captain in Sanford, Florida. DOJ's full statement.
 
So you are saying that although the only people in power have not been Libertarians, it is the Libertarians who would have done it all wrong and that guy who shot the kid wouldn't be arrested if they were in charge?

Seriously?

Wow. I'd love to see whatever post gave you that idea, even in the most remote way.
 
No. I was saying this is why the state's rights doctrine doesn't protect minorities, and why blacks, and to a lesser extent women (because white women will often vote in racial rather than gender solidarity) do not vote for parties who espouse them.

Because we have experienced the needed intervention of the federal government too many times.

Actually it does. The Feds have the same power to protect the individual rights of the victim as they do now under a "State's Rights" view as they do here. The only Federal laws that might have been broken are specific to his rights being violated.
 
Wow. I'd love to see whatever post gave you that idea, even in the most remote way.

Well, it was yours "explaining" to me that her post was about how her post was about the what if the Libertarians were in charge theme...

Either her endorsement of your explanation was wrong, or you mistranslated.
 
Well, it was yours "explaining" to me that her post was about how her post was about the what if the Libertarians were in charge theme...

Either her endorsement of your explanation was wrong, or you mistranslated.

I don't even know what the f my post was about anymore! You guys, after years of gaslighting me, have finally driven me crazy! Are you happy now?

Actually I am cracking up. This has to be the funniest shit I have read here in a while. SF goes off the deep end, and you actually come in and defend him. I will expect a post from you shortly explaining why I should go running back to Cypress! :rolleyes:

But I :loveu: you anyway Damo.

And seriously, I thank you guys for the laughs. I have to get some work done now.
 
Well, it was yours "explaining" to me that her post was about how her post was about the what if the Libertarians were in charge theme...

Either her endorsement of your explanation was wrong, or you mistranslated.

Or you did...libertarians never take responsibility, they always tist it back to the other guys.
 
I don't even know what the f my post was about anymore! You guys, after years of gaslighting me, have finally driven me crazy! Are you happy now?

Actually I am cracking up. This has to be the funniest shit I have read here in a while. SF goes off the deep end, and you actually come in and defend him. I will expect a post from you shortly explaining why I should go running back to Cypress! :rolleyes:

But I :loveu: you anyway Damo.

And seriously, I thank you guys for the laughs. I have to get some work done now.

What have I defended?

I simply stated you are entirely incorrect in your opinion about Libertarians.

The idea that Libertarians think that shooting that kid was okay is an MBR version of what Libertarians think.

Oddly enough, I simply asked questions based on the "If libertarians were in charge" version of what you endorsed from Onceler...
 
I don't even know what the f my post was about anymore! You guys, after years of gaslighting me, have finally driven me crazy! Are you happy now?

Actually I am cracking up. This has to be the funniest shit I have read here in a while. SF goes off the deep end, and you actually come in and defend him. I will expect a post from you shortly explaining why I should go running back to Cypress! :rolleyes:

But I :loveu: you anyway Damo.

And seriously, I thank you guys for the laughs. I have to get some work done now.
i still think you need to lay off the blow.
 
Back
Top