State's Rights

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...

Again dearest Darla... IF THE STATE DOESN'T ACT TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL THEN THE FED SHOULD STEP IN.

That said... again... do link us up to the timeline as to when the state knew about what was going on. Because obviously you feel that they follow every case across the state in great detail. Please show us where the State refused to act. Again keep in mind that this murder occurred 25 days ago.

So AGAIN... how fast does the state need to act in murder cases? An hour? A day? A week? A month?

Yes, the public outcry got attention focused on this case quickly. That is a good thing. You now pretend I am whitewashing something. Yet you fail to tell us what I am whitewashing. Why is that Darla? Just more baseless attacks?

Do show us where I stated or insinuated that 'of course he would be arrested'???
 
Darla said:
You're a very tit-for-tat person aren't you?
Click to expand...

Just pointing out your emo response was quite ironic. Not to mention that it was once again filled with complete bullshit from your insanely warped view of what Libertarians think and what States rights advocates ACTUALLY believe vs. your idiocy.

Because once again you pretend that States Rights advocates dont want ANY Federal involvement EVER.

You then run away from discussing it every time it is pointed out that is 100% false.
 
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 woman's 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.
 
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter to you how I feel or what emotive responses I could possibly be taking to your idiotic posts? Does it really make any difference one way or another if I'm here shouting angry white man sentiments at my monitor, or if I'm sitting here getting high and laughing at what I see in front of me?

You haven't really said anything that constitutes an argument. You've just uttered a bunch of platitudes. All you have really done is laid out the ground rules, which are as follows. If an argument is made by a white male heterosexual, then it is automatically null and void. Also, if Darla responds to his posts with comments about his demeanor, actions, level of sexual dysfunction, or level of hygiene, then he is spastically wrong. As for me, I'm a typical Seattle guy: laid back, random, and a little passive-aggressive. Either I'm this way naturally, or I am a product of my environment.

In the case of federal initiatives, it's more of an action on the part of the states than it is the federal government. Amendments can actually be passed without the federal government getting involved, if 2/3 of the states call for action instead of the proposal being passed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress. That's the point I was making by bringing up the origins of women's suffrage in the mountain west states.
 
Carlos Spicy Weiner said:
Why does it matter to you how I feel or what emotive responses I could possibly be taking to your idiotic posts? Does it really make any difference one way or another if I'm here shouting angry white man sentiments at my monitor, or if I'm sitting here getting high and laughing at what I see in front of me?

You haven't really said anything that constitutes an argument. You've just uttered a bunch of platitudes. All you have really done is laid out the ground rules, which are as follows. If an argument is made by a white male heterosexual, then it is automatically null and void. Also, if Darla responds to his posts with comments about his demeanor, actions, level of sexual dysfunction, or level of hygiene, then he is spastically wrong. As for me, I'm a typical Seattle guy: laid back, random, and a little passive-aggressive. Either I'm this way naturally, or I am a product of my environment.
Click to expand...

I disagree that I have done any of these things. I believe I have laid out strong arguments. You and SF have shouted, cursed, yelled, meandered, and called me an idiot and a moron over and over. You have not done all of those things, just most of them. Sf has done all of them.

if you call that behavior "making an argument" then you two have performed masterfully.
 
You have not laid out strong arguments. Calling people a bunch of racists and sexists for supporting libertarian initiatives isn't laying out an argument at all.
 
Superfreak said:
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 woman's 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.
Click to expand...

Libertarians are diverse and just because you, and individual libertarian are not for one thing, does not mean that I am an idiot. You are offensive, over emotional, nasty, and bullying.

I have to leave for several hours and will get back to this, but the only reason I haven't told you to go fuck your self sideways and referred to you as the irrational animal you are behaving as, is because I refuse to lower myself to your disgusting level.

BTW - you continually claim I am "running", you did the same thing on the birth control thread, a thread I made about a hundred posts on. Just because i refuse to say "oh you are absolutely right SF" does not mean I am running. You believe that anyone who doesn't bend to the inevitability of your rightness is either an idiot or a coward. That pretty much defines white male privilege. To put it nicely. Which btw you don't deserve.
 
Carlos Spicy Weiner said:
You have not laid out strong arguments. Calling people a bunch of racists and sexists for supporting libertarian initiatives isn't laying out an argument at all.
Click to expand...

Nope. I have laid out exactly how you do not have to be either of those things in order to effect racist or sexist outcomes.

Read deeper. That you can't? Not my problem.
 
When it comes to States Rights, the problem is that if we followed the argument of those who are purists we would still have seggregated schools, busses and lunch counters in the south.
 
Darla said:
Right. And here we have circled right back to the "no true Libertarian" thing.

I already addressed that 100 posts ago, foot stamper.
Click to expand...

No you haven't... you have just stomped around pretending that Libertarians would never want the Fed to step in. You take the very very extremist view of states rights and try to apply it to the Libertarian party as a whole. You have NO basis for doing so other than the remarks of extremists. By your standard we should hold all environmentalists to the actions/positions of eco terrorists. It is idiocy. Period.

You refuse to address what time table the state should follow in cases to get involved.

You refuse to address WHEN the State became aware of this case.

You refuse to listen to anyone that doesn't share your warped opinion of Libertarians.

You call us sexist, racist, you demean White men constantly by pretending we just 'don't get it cause we be white men', you consistently mock, then come in on a high horse and say we are meanies for treating you as you have treated others on this thread. You are beyond pathetic on this issue. You have no clue and refuse to learn. Because it interferes with your bullshit fantasy world.
 
Damocles said:
What will Darla say if the Feds also conclude that there isn't enough evidence to arrest the guy?
Click to expand...

I suspect she'll get in touch w/ any African American friends she has in FL, and tell them to move out. Because it will basically be open season.
 
Onceler said:
I suspect she'll get in touch w/ any African American friends she has in FL, and tell them to move out. Because it will basically be open season.
Click to expand...

I still can't figure out how he slept in his own bed that night rather than a thin mattress in his new cell at what will later become a permanent address. But then I'm not the DA that told the cops that they didn't have enough to arrest the guy.
 
Damocles said:
I still can't figure out how he slept in his own bed that night rather than a thin mattress in his new cell at what will later become a permanent address. But then I'm not the DA that told the cops that they didn't have enough to arrest the guy.
Click to expand...

Does everyone who kills someone in self-defense need to go to prison that night? I don't mean just this case I mean everyone. Because based on what I read from what Zimmerman and the witnesses said I can understand why the cops might think it was self-defense on the night the shooting occurred. Now that the 911 calls have been released and more info has come out this guy clearly belongs behind bars.
 
cawacko said:
Does everyone who kills someone in self-defense need to go to prison that night? I don't mean just this case I mean everyone. Because based on what I read from what Zimmerman and the witnesses said I can understand why the cops might think it was self-defense on the night the shooting occurred. Now that the 911 calls have been released and more info has come out this guy clearly belongs behind bars.
Click to expand...

It really depends. If they were defending against a dangerous bag of Skittles they probably should. If there is clear evidence that it really was self defense then probably not. I have yet to see what evidence the DA had that would make them so sure that he shouldn't be held during investigation of a murder of a minor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top