State's Rights

Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's very fascinating, Darla. Your work on libertarianism is quite the work on scholarship. Personally, I'm not particularly worried about someone calling me undersized in the penis department. I might even quote that great fraud of psychiatry, and make some stupid joke about envy.

As for white being a race, well, it is, and it's a rather bland and boring one at that. Like so many West Coast men, I prefer a nice plush, sunkissed colour, but, alas, I am whiter than all hell. I dunno, I'm not sure if I should litter this post by stating something relevant and profound, or just follow the example this thread gave to me, and just bullshit. Perhaps make some crack about my male gender, and all of the stupid things I have done in its name.

You should probably be aware, however, that the movement for women's suffrage began at the state level, out there in that backwood Rocky Mountain region, right next door to where neanderthals such as SF and Damo choose to reside. The issue took over 40 years from those fair beginnings to finally make it through Congress. As it happens, though, all rights codified into law via the Constitution, require 3/4 of the states to ratify them as Amendments. This one is pretty straightforward, though, and, certainly, SCOTUS case law out of Connecticut, that bastion of libertarian thought, is a pretty decent stand for federal power and its benevolence toward the downtrodden.

I don't always stamp my feet when someone says something moronic and stupid. These Midcan-style threads about libertarianism have always been somewhat silly, and have produced some interesting discussions over the years. His "Libertarianism in a Nutshell" and "Freedom in a Nutshell" threads back on FP were epic. Back then, we even had a whole slew of libertarians hanging around the board, such as Stringy and Beefy, to put Middie in his place.

Anyway, something race, something gender, something libertarianism and oppression... Meh, perhaps, something about stomping feet, getting spastic, and having the debate summarily declared over...
 
Carlos Spicy Weiner said:
You should probably be aware, however, that the movement for women's suffrage began at the state level, out there in that backwood Rocky Mountain region, right next door to where neanderthals such as SF and Damo choose to reside. The issue took over 40 years from those fair beginnings to finally make it through Congress. As it happens, though, all rights codified into law via the Constitution, require 3/4 of the states to ratify them as Amendments. This one is pretty straightforward, though, and, certainly, SCOTUS case law out of Connecticut, that bastion of libertarian thought, is a pretty decent stand for federal power and its benevolence toward the downtrodden.

I don't always stamp my feet when someone says something moronic and stupid. These Midcan-style threads about libertarianism have always been somewhat silly, and have produced some interesting discussions over the years. His "Libertarianism in a Nutshell" and "Freedom in a Nutshell" threads back on FP were epic. Back then, we even had a whole slew of libertarians hanging around the board, such as Stringy and Beefy, to put Middie in his place.

Anyway, something race, something gender, something libertarianism and oppression... Meh, perhaps, something about stomping feet, getting spastic, and having the debate summarily declared over...
Click to expand...

I took out the first two paragraphs of meandering crap, though I do believe they show you are taking this personally.

Anyone with even a 6th grade education is probably aware that mass movements for social justice, women's rights, and civil rights began at the grass roots levels. So of course they began at the state-level. But they all had to go federal. Why? Because there were always states who denied citizens their rights. I think a great example of this today is the gay civil rights movement. We see gays winning their rights state by state. However, the time is going to come when there are no more states they will be able to win those rights in. At that point, the federal government will have to step in and change the federal law. Whether this happens via a supreme court case which the fed then has to enforce, who knows, but it's probable. Now, state's right proponents will say that the fed has no right to come in and tell the state what to do. But people believe that the federal government should play that role, will advocate for its power to expand rights for all of America's citizens.

Now, it's interesting that out of all the Libertarian geniuses here, only Cawacko began to touch on something that would be a very interesting debate - how does someone who advocates for a strong federal government answer for their recent interference with states that have legalized marijuana. He was uncovering something there that is much smarter, and more interesting than stamping your feet and crying about the poor misunderstood white male libertarians.

If I were you, I'd start asking what's going to happen with people like me if the Supreme Court overturns Roe V Wade. How will that effect my opinions? But few of you freedom-loving Libertarians want to touch that cause that love of freedom rarely extends to a woman's freedom to control her own body in your circles. (Not saying all, just mostly, in my experience anyway).

Now, I can have that argument. It'd even be an interesting one. But most of you whiny ass little titty babies are too busy crying over the terrible assault against white men that takes place anytime someone points out that women and minorities don't really care for your ideology.
 
christiefan915 said:
Okay SF you got me. I should have said "authorities", not State. Mea culpa.

I'm outraged that Sanford accepted self-defense and refused to charge the man.
Click to expand...

I agree they should have him in jail. That said, the investigation is still on going. While the evidence suggests Zimmerman was the aggressor the 911 call 'apparently' suggests that Zimmerman might have been attacked (after he got out of his car to go after Martin??... still not seeing it, but if there is a doubt in their minds, then the benefit of the doubt goes towards presumed innocence rather than presumed guilt.

What evidence do they have that Martin attacked Zimmerman either offensively or defensively?
Click to expand...

Other than not knowing who was calling for help on the 911 call, which is highly questionable... none that I have seen.

How does Zimmerman get to patrol his neighborhood with a gun and make the decision that it's okay to shoot somebody based on.... his looks? his speech? I think Zimmerman's claims are absurd and that the "stand your ground" statute seems to allow someone to shoot first and ask questions later. I would like to see the justification that this gorilla felt intimidated by a smallish teenager.
Click to expand...

1) The State allows concealed carry permits. Many states do. That does not mean people get to go around shooting other people.
2) He does not get to shoot someone based on looks/speech.
3) I think Zimmermans claims about it being self defense are bullshit as well.
4) The stature does not allow a person to just shoot and ask questions later. It allows people to use the force they deem necessary to protect themselves and/or family from an attack. When being attacked, if you run/walk backwards etc.. you are weakening your position in many cases (and also emboldening the attacker). That is why this law came into being.
 
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...
Libertarians get upset when someone doesn't take them serious because, well....hardly anyone takes them seriously.
 
Darla said:
No he isn't. But wouldn't it be a good thing for LIbertarians to debate this among themselves? Wouldn't that be good for the board even? I see liberals debating things among themselves all the time. YOu want to educate people about Libertarians Billy, go for it.

That's what this board is for. You should absolutely have this debate with STY, and so should SF.
Click to expand...

1) Fine, I will take him off of IA and tell him he is wrong, because Darla has stated that we absolutely MUST do so.

2) As I stated to you earlier and in your rage you ignored... STY is correct to state that the Feds should not be involved if the State is investigating. Which it is. IF the State fails, THEN the FED should step in. However, if Mott is correct and the State invited the Feds in, then I have no problem with their involvement at this point.
 
Darla said:
It's weird how it's mostly white males who cry about state's rights, and who also tend to join the Libertarian party, the party that loves sausage - but not browned. Why they can't attract women is no mystery - cause hey, bitches be crazy! But their inability to attract black men has long been the rubik's cube of politics. No one can figure it out!

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that in the year 2012, a black male can still be lynched in this country and not face state murder charges.

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...

WE have a law here in Florida, signed by Jeb Bush, that allows you to shoot and kill anyone who you feel threatened by, so, if this guy says he felt threatened.....
 
Superfreak said:
1) Fine, I will take him off of IA and tell him he is wrong, because Darla has stated that we absolutely MUST do so.

2) As I stated to you earlier and in your rage you ignored... STY is correct to state that the Feds should not be involved if the State is investigating. Which it is. IF the State fails, THEN the FED should step in. However, if Mott is correct and the State invited the Feds in, then I have no problem with their involvement at this point.
Click to expand...
Not even if the community even INVITES the feds in?
 
Superfreak said:
I agree they should have him in jail. That said, the investigation is still on going. While the evidence suggests Zimmerman was the aggressor the 911 call 'apparently' suggests that Zimmerman might have been attacked (after he got out of his car to go after Martin??... still not seeing it, but if there is a doubt in their minds, then the benefit of the doubt goes towards presumed innocence rather than presumed guilt.
Other than not knowing who was calling for help on the 911 call, which is highly questionable... none that I have seen.

1) The State allows concealed carry permits. Many states do. That does not mean people get to go around shooting other people.
2) He does not get to shoot someone based on looks/speech.
3) I think Zimmermans claims about it being self defense are bullshit as well.
4) The stature does not allow a person to just shoot and ask questions later. It allows people to use the force they deem necessary to protect themselves and/or family from an attack. When being attacked, if you run/walk backwards etc.. you are weakening your position in many cases (and also emboldening the attacker). That is why this law came into being.
Click to expand...

A case like this illustrates the flaws in the law. What constitutes "attack"? Can you use deadly force against someone who hits you with a fist?

If none of this was caught on tape, he'd be off, scot-free. It basically seems like people can carry guns around, shoot anyone they want and then make up any story they want to justify "self-defense."
 
christiefan915 said:
What demographics showed she was wrong? She said: "It's weird how it's mostly white males who cry about state's rights, and who also tend to join the Libertarian party, the party that loves sausage - but not browned. Why they can't attract women is no mystery..."

Look at the Cato report again. They've broken down memberships into five different political factions and the biggest disparity in members based on gender is in the Libertarian party. It's 18% points. The next highest one is a tie between ambivalents and populists, an 8% gender difference. I'd say Darla more than made her point when you compare all the parties in the report.
Click to expand...

Saying a group that is comprised of 41% women, CAN'T attract women... that is correct to you? She didn't say anything about there being a greater disparity in the Libertarian party than in the Democratic one. She tried in the OP to play it off that it was just a bunch of white men. She was wrong. Period.
 
Onceler said:
A case like this illustrates the flaws in the law. What constitutes "attack"? Can you use deadly force against someone who hits you with a fist?

If none of this was caught on tape, he'd be off, scot-free. It basically seems like people can carry guns around, shoot anyone they want and then make up any story they want to justify "self-defense."
Click to expand...
To top that off it was an attempt to fix something that wasn't broke to satisfy a bunch of gun nuts. Remind me to stay out of Florida!
 
and just for kickers, we'll see if darla whips a frenzy over strong government on this one, here is what happens when a state enforces the law without any attempt at thinking 'is this the right thing to do'.

http://kstp.com/news/stories/s2542281.shtml

A Burnsville man on his way to work was arrested and thrown in jail without bond, and then subjected to electronic home monitoring.

But it wasn’t for drugs or a DWI or some other major crime.

Burnsville city leaders say Mitch Faber’s dealings with the law all stem from his failure to properly put up siding on his house.

Yep, siding.

Faber says he had every intention of completing the stucco and decorative rock project on his home but he ran into money troubles when the economy soured. Burnsville leaders say they had no choice to enforce the law.
Click to expand...

i'm sure that this will now degenerate in to a discussion of 'the law is the law'. right libtards?
 
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tell us Darla... what have we said that is from a 'white mans' perspective?

Is it that we approve of Federal action in cases where the State and local governments fail to act to protect the individual? Just so you have a chance at picking up on it this time I will spell it out for you.... voting rights/right to be free/right to own property and even womans reproductive rights... all of these would be examples where the Federal government is protecting the INDIVIDUAL, when the State and local governments refuse to.

So all those rights you keep clamoring about are issues where the FED stepped in to protect the INDIVIDUAL. Which if you had an open mind and actually listened to what Libertarians support rather than sticking to your braindead view that has been force fed by so called progressive masters to you, you would see that Libertarians would have approved of the Fed stepping in.

But you can't see that, because you have it stuck in your mind that Libertarians are against Fed involvement no matter what. It is that moronic view that is making you look so foolish.
 
Superfreak said:
1) Fine, I will take him off of IA and tell him he is wrong, because Darla has stated that we absolutely MUST do so.

2) As I stated to you earlier and in your rage you ignored... STY is correct to state that the Feds should not be involved if the State is investigating. Which it is. IF the State fails, THEN the FED should step in. However, if Mott is correct and the State invited the Feds in, then I have no problem with their involvement at this point.
Click to expand...

Of course your whitewashed version ignores the fact that the state didn't do shit about anything, nor did anyone high up in the state, including the governor, peep a word about this until there was a massive outcry. Five minutes, or excuse me, more correctly and quite literally, five hours after the Feds announced they were opening an investigation into whether his civil rights were violated, the state said they were also convening a grand jury.

Pretending wide-eyed innocence that all of this was going to happen anyway, and of course he would be arrested is total horseshit and I think you know it.
 
Darla said:
Of course your whitewashed version ignores the fact that the state didn't do shit about anything, nor did anyone high up in the state, including the governor, peep a word about this until there was a massive outcry. Five minutes, or excuse me, more correctly and quite literally, five hours after the Feds announced they were opening an investigation into whether his civil rights were violated, the state said they were also convening a grand jury.

Pretending wide-eyed innocence that all of this was going to happen anyway, and of course he would be arrested is total horseshit and I think you know it.
Click to expand...
I'm starting to think you're pretty clueless about how the judicial system works. am I right?
 
Superfreak said:
Saying a group that is comprised of 41% women, CAN'T attract women... that is correct to you? She didn't say anything about there being a greater disparity in the Libertarian party than in the Democratic one. She tried in the OP to play it off that it was just a bunch of white men. She was wrong. Period.
Click to expand...

I said to a lesser extend women, and even specified that white women often vote in racial rather than gender solidarity.

Fact: A gender gap in voting records exists. The current GOP war on women is exacerbating that gap, but it exists historically regardless.

Fact: The official Libertarian party does not attract women voters in even the numbers that the GOP attracts them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top