robdawg right every time

RStringfield said:
No. What relevance does that have here?
Click to expand...

Umm you said it should be a state local thing that should require a supermajority.
supermajority requirements seem to be pretty specific in the constitution and in the KY constitution as well.
Not sure about the rest.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm you said it should be a state local thing that should require a supermajority.
supermajority requirements seem to be pretty specific in the constitution and in the KY constitution as well.
Not sure about the rest.
Click to expand...

I don't think you know what you are talking about and I certainly do not. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a state cannot require supermajorities for the passage of laws.
 
blackascoal said:
I have a Bouvier. He's a big dog. I can take him to the park and people, even small children can walk right up to him and touch him. Kids want to ride him and often pull his beard, try to open his mouth, play with his ears, and many stand right in front of his face and stare into his eyes. I have ZERO concern that he would ever attack a child.

However, if a dog, especially a large male walks up to him, there is going to be trouble. HE'S A DOG .. a pack animal .. and it is his nature to defend himself.

I can take him to a dog park and let him run with other dogs and he's fine .. as long as another dog does not challenge or try to mount him.

I'm sorry my brother, but just because a dog will fight does not mean it will attack people .. even if the fight is unprovoked. They are pack animals.

Humans try to reinvent animals to fit our world often with no respect for the animals inherent nature.
Click to expand...



your a moron, dog parks are commonly known as "neutral ground" and do not defend neutral ground
 
RStringfield said:
I don't think you know what you are talking about and I certainly do not. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a state cannot require supermajorities for the passage of laws.
Click to expand...

yes but it does bypass the intent of the US constitutiion.
This is the out that libertarians have, hold the constitution holy and just push it all off to the states where they can do what they want.
 
uscitizen said:
yes but it does bypass the intent of the US constitutiion.
This is the out that libertarians have, hold the constitution holy and just push it all off to the states where they can do what they want.
Click to expand...

It does not at all. The constitution was clearly intended to establish a federalist system. Do you have any argument to back your ridiculous claim?
 
RStringfield said:
It does not at all. The constitution was clearly intended to establish a federalist system. Do you have any argument to back your ridiculous claim?
Click to expand...

It just explains why Libertarians are strong for states rights, a way to bypass the restrictions of the constitution. Have your cake and eat it too kind of thing , Doublespeak, etc....

We have to honor the limits of the constitution, if you want to screw the people the states can do that.
 
uscitizen said:
It just explains why Libertarians are strong for states rights, a way to bypass the restrictions of the constitution. Have your cake and eat it too kind of thing , Doublespeak, etc....

We have to honor the limits of the constitution, if you want to screw the people the states can do that.
Click to expand...

Alright, can you make a clear and legitimate argument or not? You are simply making absurd and baseless assertions while talking gibberish in circles.

The constitution ESTABLISHES division of power between the states and the federal government. There is no attempt to "bypass the restrictions of the constitution" here. The constitution DEMANDS the division of power. Also, the constitution does not restrict the states from laws concerning animals and since it does not reserve that power to the feds it is a matter for the states.

Further the people are protected from the states by the 14th amendment.

Finally, I am arguing for greater protection of the people from both the state and federal government.

So just what the fuck are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
Alright, can you make a clear and legitimate argument or not? You are simply making absurd and baseless assertions while talking gibberish in circles.

The constitution ESTABLISHES division of power between the states and the federal government. There is no attempt to "bypass the restrictions of the constitution" here. The constitution DEMANDS the division of power. Further, the constitution does not restrict the states from laws concerning animals and since it does not reserve that power to the feds it is a matter for the states.

Further the people are protected from the states by the 14th amendment.

Finally, I am arguing for greater protection of the people from both the state and federal government.

So just what the fuck are you talking about?
Click to expand...



I am talking about your attitude of requiring super majorities on your select issues in states but not on the federal level. Plain and simple.
 
uscitizen said:
I am talking about your attitude of requiring super majorities on your select issues in states but not on the federal level. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the constitution that says that the states don't have such a right. This is no workaround. It isn't stretching anything. If he wants that in his state and they put it into law then it just is. It has nothing to do with you, unless you live there, and it has nothing to do with the federal constitution.

You are just talking out your butt because you want to dislike libertarians.
 
Damocles said:
There is nothing in the constitution that says that the states don't have such a right. This is no workaround. It isn't stretching anything. If he wants that in his state and they put it into law then it just is. It has nothing to do with you, unless you live there, and it has nothing to do with the federal constitution.

You are just talking out your butt because you want to dislike libertarians.
Click to expand...
Right, I just realized this is the plan for Libertarians to have their cake and eat it too.
An ephinany thing.
 
uscitizen said:
Right, I just realized this is the plan for Libertarians to have their cake and eat it too.
An ephinany thing.
Click to expand...
Right. Whatever. I don't agree with it, and so far only one guy suggests it, and it is because he thinks it would be more difficult to get such laws passed.

There is no substantial argument that it is against the federal constitution.
 
Damocles said:
Right. Whatever. I don't agree with it, and so far only one guy suggests it, and it is because he thinks it would be more difficult to get such laws passed.

There is no substantial argument that it is against the federal constitution.
Click to expand...

No it is not against the federal constitution. Poor statement on my part followed by spin on anothers part.
 
uscitizen said:
I am talking about your attitude of requiring super majorities on your select issues in states but not on the federal level. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you are talking in circles. This, plainly and simply, does not involve the Feds as I stated at the outset, have repeated and did so in the last post.

Further, you are wrong. I would support a supermajority at the federal level for tax or debt level increases. However, that would require an amendment for it to be effective. No such amendment, to the federal constitution (it might need amendment to the state) is required here.

Your point, is without merit.
 
uscitizen said:
Right, I just realized this is the plan for Libertarians to have their cake and eat it too.
An ephinany thing.
Click to expand...

And yet you have failed to express this epiphany. What cake and how are we eating it too. There is no conflict, contradiction or any sort of hypocrisy here. You are just babbling nonsense.

Damocles said:
Right. Whatever. I don't agree with it, and so far only one guy suggests it, and it is because he thinks it would be more difficult to get such laws passed.

There is no substantial argument that it is against the federal constitution.
Click to expand...

No, that is not the reason. I have no doubt that upwards of 90% would choose to outlaw dog fighting. I simply feel that if you are going to establish a subjective and shifting cultural definition as a standard for law then it should require a large concensus to protect minority cultures and a sufficient gauge to ensure that there is substantial agreement.

Also, this has been used and advanced for issues such as taxation. If you are going to violate someone's individual rights it should not be on some simple whim.

uscitizen said:
No it is not against the federal constitution. Poor statement on my part followed by spin on anothers part.
Click to expand...

BS! You continue to imply that I am attempting some end run around the constittuion and there is none.
 
Damocles said:
Hey! Being sarcastic about people's religious belief is a huge offense, according to doniston!
Click to expand...
that sir is not true. I have never sid nor implied any such thing therefore this is just your type of spin. or IT IS AN INTENTIONAL LIE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top