State's Rights

Johnny Rocketfingers said:
No. It doesn't. I've read the Florida law. It's the basis of all other castle laws. It requires the STATE to PROVE that a crime had occurred, as opposed to requiring the ACCUSED to PROVE that they didn't commit a crime.
Click to expand...

It requires the state to overcome an impossible burden of proof. I have often argued with proponents of such laws who boast about the fact that they can get away with murdering people they don't truly feel threatened by because, after all, how on Earth is the state supposed to prove that you didn't feel threatened? It's a ridiculous burden of proof. With standard murder laws, when the state can't absolutely prove that you had a premeditated intent to kill the target, which is often a huge burden of proof, they can often still fall back on manslaughter laws. But there is no such fallback here: you completely get off based entirely on the states inability to tell what's going on in your head. Proponents of this law should not boast about the fact that it allows them to act like the barbaric, ignorant animals they are truly in their heart at one turn and then play the angel act at the other.
 
Alexander Hamilton said:
It requires the state to overcome an impossible burden of proof. I have often argued with proponents of such laws who boast about the fact that they can get away with murdering people they don't truly feel threatened by because, after all, how on Earth is the state supposed to prove that you didn't feel threatened? It's a ridiculous burden of proof. With standard murder laws, when the state can't absolutely prove that you had a premeditated intent to kill the target, which is often a huge burden of proof, they can often still fall back on manslaughter laws. But there is no such fallback here: you completely get off based entirely on the states inability to tell what's going on in your head. Proponents of this law should not boast about the fact that it allows them to act like the barbaric, ignorant animals they are truly in their heart at one turn and then play the angel act at the other.
Click to expand...

If you'd care to cite the unobtainable proof that is required, I'd be more than happy to see it. Many laws in all manner of instances base intent in their commission, and this is no different.
 
Derp Derp said:
Hey I'm sorry if an ugly truth bothers you but as a practical matter I'm right. What have libertarians ever accomplished besides "Jack Squat". Walk the talk man.

There's two significant problems Libertarians have;

#1 is leadership. They do nothing. They have accomplished nothig. They are like I said, mostly a bunch of white guys on the internet doing NOTHING!

#2. is practicality. Ideology is well and fine but if it dont' work it don't work. Tell me of one affective government in the world that isn't utilitarian in nature? Even Republican politicians at their best govern as utilitarians. As a practical matter a political leader must respect individual rights and they must repsect the rule of law but when push comes to shove they make their decisions based on what is in the best interest of the most people. In that respect Libertarians are out there in LaLa land. When cornored about these realities of governing they just wash their hands and quote the constitution. So, it doesn't matter what the hell your ideology is if you can't govern!

My point being until Libertarians can figure those two problems out there never going to be taken to seriously. Considering most Libertarians have the leadership potential of Fredo Corleone I woudn't hold my breath if I was you. :)
Click to expand...

It actually doesn't matter. Libertarians can only accomplish with their philosophy to the utmost extent that Americans believe in liberty and American principles. Since the public, does not, for the most part care (in most cases), or believe (in most remaining cases) in liberty, then you aren't going to see a lot of achievements made by libertarians.

The great thing about libertarianism, is that, unlike the other ideologies which are battling for the emotions and functions of the American public, libertarians will not attemt to force people to believe in liberty or sustainability, or anything else, against its will. America will either flourish and succeed, or it will flounder and fail. Libertarians may attempt to influence the outcome via joining the debate and going through the motions of mounting campaigns and whatnot, but it's up to the public to figure shit out and stop being such damned proles.
 
Derp Derp said:
OK Fredo, it' means getting off your butt, finding like minded people, organizing your self politically, defining your goals and your strategy to accomplish those goals and then implementing them.
Click to expand...

How the fuck is Cawacko going to find like-minded people in SF, when precious few people there even have a mind, to, like, mind in the first place? :cool:
 
Onceler said:
Wow - they're right; you really are determined to dumb this one up.

It's not what Libertarianism is doing NOW, SF. It's why the Libertarian philosophy would NOT work with regard to state's rights, if you & yours ever win the day. Because if this was up to the locals, a man would get away w/ murder.

Get it?
Click to expand...

So, let me sort this out...

1) We Republicans/Democrats/Conservatives/Leftists are all so incompetent, look at how badly we all fucked-up in this case of probable murder and hate-crime.
2) However, you can't throw us out of power, because libertarians would automatically be MORE incompetent, and much GREATER fuck-ups on all future cases.
3) Therefore, I humbly submit to you, the status-quo.

Is this about right?
 
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...

How is your signature supposed to come to fruition if you play the headache excuse? Now this thread is really pointless...
 
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's weird how Darla wants an all-powerful government. She clearly wants to elect Senator Palpatine as our first emperor, so he can kill off all the religious clerics, nationalize everything, dissolve the rusty institutions of the legislature, start spending obsessively on space technology to stimulate the economy, and so forth. I just don't get why she would buy into this monstrous sci-fi government.
 
Rana said:
Sorry, this is one you have to figure out on your own, if you can't, well, that is your problem.
Click to expand...

That's not an answer, Rana.

172-TakeEvasiveAction.jpg
 
christiefan915 said:
Exactly! And the libertarians are doing their darnedest to steer it off into an irrelevant tangent.
Click to expand...

Wholely fuck! If you want want relevance in this thread, post something relevant. If you want more of the same, just keep re-posting Darla's OP every several pages, and we can just stay off-topic, and non-relevant. Libertarians didn't select the topic for this thread; the creator of the thread did that for them.
 
Darla said:
No I did not mean that Libertarians in general were okay with a black man being shot and no charges being brought (though some are okay with it) I mean that their ideology leads to this. I've said this a hundred times. That you keep stamping your feet because I wont' say what you want me to say is not my problem.

But I imagine it's hard on your feet after a while.
Click to expand...

You have also restated your sociological attacks on libertarians a hundred times. But, I suppose if the goal is just to get people to stamp their feet, and declare victory. If that is your goal, then you have won, but the satisfaction gleaned from doing this on message boards bares a heavy stigma, because of the type of people who engage in this tactic.
 
Darla said:
If you believe that's the Libertarian position, it's too bad you or Billy didn't bother to say anything to STY who was stating that the feds had no right to intervene.

THat may not be what you believe. But you are not the national spokesman for libertarianism.

Further, and far more importantly, state's rights have always been used in these cases to prevent federal interference. You know that. We all know that. This argument that "then that's not the real state's rights!" is a bunch of fucking horseshit that libertarians always pull out of their asses. Oh Libertarianism would too work! It's just never been tried! And in places it was tried and failed, well that wasn't real Libertarianism!

Uh huh.
Click to expand...

STY would provide a nice distraction from you, but there have been dozens of threads where members of this board have ripped into STY and his thirst for cop-blood, and other assorted eccentricities.

Also, it seems to me that the reason why people take the time to trash libertarianism during a crisis, such as the national recession or this murder case, is because the ideologies representing the status quo (the parties, their partisans, the numerous ideologies currently in vogue, etc.) have failed so miserably, that we need to lash out at libertarianism, lest the fools who keep voting for "us" actually turn to them. Right now, the best way to take up a lot of airtime on cable news, seems to be to take a viewpoint we claim is extreme, and start calling it extreme over and over again, during hours of deliberation, irrelevant news bytes, lazy anecdotes, and so forth.
 
Carlos Spicy Weiner said:
STY would provide a nice distraction from you, but there have been dozens of threads where members of this board have ripped into STY and his thirst for cop-blood, and other assorted eccentricities.

Also, it seems to me that the reason why people take the time to trash libertarianism during a crisis, such as the national recession or this murder case, is because the ideologies representing the status quo (the parties, their partisans, the numerous ideologies currently in vogue, etc.) have failed so miserably, that we need to lash out at libertarianism, lest the fools who keep voting for "us" actually turn to them. Right now, the best way to take up a lot of airtime on cable news, seems to be to take a viewpoint we claim is extreme, and start calling it extreme over and over again, during hours of deliberation, irrelevant news bytes, lazy anecdotes, and so forth.
Click to expand...

It’s absolutely riveting how personally the male Libertarians here have taken this thread. You would think I had put a thread stating that studies found that nearly all Libertarians suffer from micro-penis syndrome.

You are all looking at this from the perspective of the white male. Now in many quarters, just my saying this is “playing the race card!!” “playing the gender card!!!” “YOU HATE MEN!” “You hate white people!!”

But that’s just a small-mind revealing itself. White is a race. Male is a gender. This is what the white male often forgets. Because the deck has always been so stacked in his favor, the default race is white, and the default gender is male. So white males advocating for a position is not considered identity politics. But of course, it’s the original identity politics!

Historically, the federal government has taken rights from the white male. Or, things that he perceived as his right. His right to keep blacks from voting. His right to oppress women. His right to own blacks. His right to own his woman’s and even all women’s reproductive systems. (Griswald vs CT)

At the same time, historically, the federal government has expanded rights for women and minorities. The right to vote. The right to be free. The right to control her body. The right to own property. All of which were fought for, sometimes with their blood, and won. But it was the federal government who codified those rights, and then protected them.

IT is two very different views of history, and two very different views of the role of the federal government.

Stamping your feet and demanding that I retract my “stupid” “moronic” opinion, will never change that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top