|
|
On October 23 2012 04:50 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:20 Adreme wrote:On October 23 2012 04:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:08 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:56 Adreme wrote:On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:32 Jormundr wrote:On October 23 2012 02:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
Roe was a terrible compromise, because it wasn't any kind of compromise. Ok Group A wants abortion to legal because they stress that both the life and liberty of the host are paramount Group B wants abortion to be illegal because they stress that the life of the fetus is paramount Government body says that abortion is only legal from point A to point B (Point B being the end of the first trimester) from points B-C (the last two trimesters) states have the right to make it legal or illegal except in the cases of incest and rape. That's a compromise. In fact it leans further numerically to the standpoint of group B. You may not like the compromise, but it is in fact a compromise between the two opposing ideologies which attempts to preserve the life and liberty of both the parent and the fetus. compromise would be to allow the states to decide, not to, by fiat, have unelected officials determine that nationwide abortion is legal. That would a different compromise. You are offering a compromise over who whereas they compromised over when. in a situation where one side is saying: "never" and the other side is saying "sometimes" i don't see how it ending up being "sometimes" is all that much of a compromise.... On October 23 2012 03:57 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:32 Jormundr wrote:On October 23 2012 02:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
Roe was a terrible compromise, because it wasn't any kind of compromise. Ok Group A wants abortion to legal because they stress that both the life and liberty of the host are paramount Group B wants abortion to be illegal because they stress that the life of the fetus is paramount Government body says that abortion is only legal from point A to point B (Point B being the end of the first trimester) from points B-C (the last two trimesters) states have the right to make it legal or illegal except in the cases of incest and rape. That's a compromise. In fact it leans further numerically to the standpoint of group B. You may not like the compromise, but it is in fact a compromise between the two opposing ideologies which attempts to preserve the life and liberty of both the parent and the fetus. compromise would be to allow the states to decide, not to, by fiat, have unelected officials determine that nationwide abortion is legal. You're talking about a right to a medical procedure. That is NOT how we decide rights in this country. Women with rights in one state, but without rights in another state? Where do you get these ideas? If a woman has a right to abortion -- then that applies to all women, everywhere in this country. state's rights is not some new issue. it is, in fact, older than this country. so, you'll forgive me for assuming that the position of a state's rights proponent is valid, considering the fact that it has remained a concern for many in this country for the last 250 years... Sorry, but no. States have some rights to make their own legislation -- but that has never and should never include matters of civil rights. Unless you're a Confederate, I guess. But you guys lost that war, so guess what, civil rights are not decided by states anymore. edit: In closing, I'll just point to the fact that even our conservative Supreme Court agrees with me on this, especially in regards to abortion. You can not deny women in certain states a right that other women in America have. It is disgustingly unfair that a woman should be denied a medical procedure based on what state she lives in. ok, i'm gonna take these points one by one: 1) states have always had the right to choose, to some degree, which "civil rights" they consider to be valid and which they do not. capital punishment is a good example, as is the Mass. "Romneycare" issue. Drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are other issues of "civil rights" that have, traditionally, been left largely to the states. you're history is flawed here. 2) I am a Republican, we fought the Confederates in the Civil War and in the Civil Rights battle. besides this is an ad hominem attack. also, to suggest that only Confederates (racists is what you really meant) would hold a position that promotes state's rights is... well, let's just say that is isn't exactly intellectually honest. 3) Clarence Thomas in particular has mentioned that the Roe decision was an overreach of federal authority. this claim that every conservative Justice agrees with you is wildly false. 4) States can, and do, provide different rights to the citizens of their state. this is a tradition older than this country. again, you are in the wrong historically. Short history on number 2. Republicans at that time were by far the more liberal party and basically as a whole were until democrats supported the civil rights acts and then all southern democrats, who lets be honest were kinda racist, decided to join republican party instead because they opposed integration. we have been over this in this thread, so I'll keep this short: Democrats never did support the Civil Rights acts until after 1964, and then the battle of "civil rights" had already shifted into a battle over redistributive rights. also, Southern Democrats (segregationists) never totally switched to the Republicans, and there is little evidence to say that there ever was some national shift of voting based on the integration issue. + Show Spoiler +i thought i had dispelled this 10 pages ago but apparently you dont want to listen to people ;/ what you are stating is that the voting habits of the southern united states hasnt changed in the last 100 years or so. this is not only an erroneous but also false claim. your second claim that the republicans were more liberal is partially true, but you are phrasing it in such a way that is disingenuous too. MOST PEOPLE were pretty racist 50 years ago, 100 years ago, whatever. democrats and republicans, blacks and whites. whether they had power or not western society was much worse 100 years ago today. trying to stack a partisan claim that the democrats where more or less racist is retarded. you are so desperately trying to prove your conclusion that the republican party is less racist you are ignoring everything else about the issue. pre 1964 there were a lot of douchebags on both sides who hated black people, and there were good people on both sides. the part where everything starts referring to the republican party as the racist party is that post '64 the party had a racist election strategy, that by appealing directly to racists instincts of the population they could get a strong enough hold on the southern white vote to win, even forsaking the southern black vote. everyone was actively racist pre civil rights, only the republicans continued to be so until obama was elected. the rise in size of the minorities, culminating in a black president showed the republican party they could no longer rely on a purely white demographic in most states. now i dont believe the republican leadership is racist, they just didnt mind using it in order to win. its kind of funny seeing ann coulter and co trying to erase the last 50 years as if it never happened. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MrzWf.jpg) has never looked more true. on the topic of calling yourself liberal, this is another common republican tactic that ive encoutered time and again. trying to play word games to escape when they feel caught out. the yes economically liberal is fairly in line with republican thinking, but you all know as well as i do when you just say liberal, out on context, everyone thinks you mean socially liberal, which is broadly in line with modern democratic policy. you know this, everyone else knows this, but you are trying to play some stupid word game to catch people out, just waiting to pounce when someone says NO YOU ARENT so you can link them some pre prepared wikipedia page about fiscal liberalism. you look as sad as mitt romney in the debate, with his little glint in his eye, just waiting for those 3 little words act, of, terror. and this is why having a conversation is so difficult. rather than trying to explain your point, your too busy trying to trick people in to saying something which doesnt follow the literal meaning of their words. should people say more precisely what they mean? yes. does it help political discussion to be a grammar nazi about it? noooo.
holy strawmen Batman!
1) I never said the voting habits of Southerners did not change. shit, the composition of the South changed, so obviously their voting habits would change. I said there was no evidence of a massive shift of segregationist voters going Republican BECAUSE of segregation/desegregation. also, I never, ever, ever called myself a liberal. stop putting words in my mouth.
2) I haven't said anything about who was more racist.... I'm just addressing a historical claim about the voting habits and socio-political movements of the South and the Republican party...
3) before, in the post you most likely ignored, I addressed the myth that Republicans were running a racist campaign, or ran racist campaigns. please provide some direct evidence of policy/rhetoric from the elections of Goldwater and Nixon that supports this claim. the rest of the claims you have in the paragraph that I have bolded are 100% false, and show an almost unreal distorting of history.
4) that graph is funny, but again, doesn't mean anything at all.
5) dude. I NEVER CALLED MYSELF A LIBERAL! what the fudge are you even talking about?
6)uh....... dude, wtf?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 23 2012 04:54 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:26 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:08 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:56 Adreme wrote:On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:32 Jormundr wrote:On October 23 2012 02:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
Roe was a terrible compromise, because it wasn't any kind of compromise. Ok Group A wants abortion to legal because they stress that both the life and liberty of the host are paramount Group B wants abortion to be illegal because they stress that the life of the fetus is paramount Government body says that abortion is only legal from point A to point B (Point B being the end of the first trimester) from points B-C (the last two trimesters) states have the right to make it legal or illegal except in the cases of incest and rape. That's a compromise. In fact it leans further numerically to the standpoint of group B. You may not like the compromise, but it is in fact a compromise between the two opposing ideologies which attempts to preserve the life and liberty of both the parent and the fetus. compromise would be to allow the states to decide, not to, by fiat, have unelected officials determine that nationwide abortion is legal. That would a different compromise. You are offering a compromise over who whereas they compromised over when. in a situation where one side is saying: "never" and the other side is saying "sometimes" i don't see how it ending up being "sometimes" is all that much of a compromise.... On October 23 2012 03:57 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:32 Jormundr wrote:On October 23 2012 02:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
Roe was a terrible compromise, because it wasn't any kind of compromise. Ok Group A wants abortion to legal because they stress that both the life and liberty of the host are paramount Group B wants abortion to be illegal because they stress that the life of the fetus is paramount Government body says that abortion is only legal from point A to point B (Point B being the end of the first trimester) from points B-C (the last two trimesters) states have the right to make it legal or illegal except in the cases of incest and rape. That's a compromise. In fact it leans further numerically to the standpoint of group B. You may not like the compromise, but it is in fact a compromise between the two opposing ideologies which attempts to preserve the life and liberty of both the parent and the fetus. compromise would be to allow the states to decide, not to, by fiat, have unelected officials determine that nationwide abortion is legal. You're talking about a right to a medical procedure. That is NOT how we decide rights in this country. Women with rights in one state, but without rights in another state? Where do you get these ideas? If a woman has a right to abortion -- then that applies to all women, everywhere in this country. state's rights is not some new issue. it is, in fact, older than this country. so, you'll forgive me for assuming that the position of a state's rights proponent is valid, considering the fact that it has remained a concern for many in this country for the last 250 years... Sorry, but no. States have some rights to make their own legislation -- but that has never and should never include matters of civil rights. Unless you're a Confederate, I guess. But you guys lost that war, so guess what, civil rights are not decided by states anymore. edit: In closing, I'll just point to the fact that even our conservative Supreme Court agrees with me on this, especially in regards to abortion. You can not deny women in certain states a right that other women in America have. It is disgustingly unfair that a woman should be denied a medical procedure based on what state she lives in. ok, i'm gonna take these points one by one: 1) states have always had the right to choose, to some degree, which "civil rights" they consider to be valid and which they do not. capital punishment is a good example, as is the Mass. "Romneycare" issue. Drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are other issues of "civil rights" that have, traditionally, been left largely to the states. you're history is flawed here. 2) I am a Republican, we fought the Confederates in the Civil War and in the Civil Rights battle. besides this is an ad hominem attack. also, to suggest that only Confederates (racists is what you really meant) would hold a position that promotes state's rights is... well, let's just say that is isn't exactly intellectually honest. 3) Clarence Thomas in particular has mentioned that the Roe decision was an overreach of federal authority. this claim that every conservative Justice agrees with you is wildly false. 4) States can, and do, provide different rights to the citizens of their state. this is a tradition older than this country. again, you are in the wrong historically. You're trying really hard to not understand the abortion issue. 1)Yes, states have some individuality when it comes legislation. But not when it comes to rights. No state can ban alcohol, but they can limit its sale. States can decide whether to execute people for capital crimes, but that only directly effects the offenders and no one else. No rights are being decided here. Whereas with abortion, you are telling all the women of one state that they can't have a medical procedure that other women in the country do have a right to. That's wrong, and the Supreme Court agrees with me. 2)You inferred all that. My only point was the Civil War was fought over this very issue. States do not have the right to legislate their own Bill of Rights. Basic rights are something we need to share, as a nation, or they don't work. But if you want to think I called you a racist... well... then this conversation is at a loss, because I never came anywhere close to insinuating that. But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why. 3)Clarence Thomas is not the Supreme Court. 4)No, they don't. You're simply wrong. How do you justify telling women that they can't get a medical procedure that women all across the country are getting, because they happen to live in the wrong state? So they have to move to another state, or make the trip their to get a medical procedure? Who compensates them for that? It is plainly ridiculous and unfair to say that women's right to abortion should be divided by state lines. And, yes, the Supreme Court agrees with me 1) many counties have banned alcohol. capital punishment effects everyone (see: deterrence and/or cost of maintenance). also, it has long been held that prisoners/criminals do have rights and that Capital punishment does concern these rights. the current Supreme Court agrees with you, but the Courts have been known to change positions, and also have been known to be in the wrong on the issue of civil rights. (see Dredd Scott) appealing to the Supreme Court is simply a fallacious appeal to authority. 2) the Civil War was fought over the specific right of the states to 1) protect slavery and 2) secede from the Union. at no point was it ever considered that it was a fight over the broad rights of states to determine what constitutes a civil right and what doesn't. nor was it held to have ended the discussion over what constitutes a "basic right" and what doesn't. you called me a Confederate, obviously appealing toward the racism that they held. you again insinuated it with this comment: "But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why." 3) You made the claim that all conservative members of the Supreme Court agree with you. Clarence Thomas is a Justice who disagrees with you, thus his disagreement is all I need to prove this assertion false. further, I am not aware that any conservative (or liberal for that matter) on the Court agrees with your strange perception of states rights. 4) this isn't even arguable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)http://www.aclu.org/know-your-voting-rights-state-state-voter-informationI justify it by saying: 1) the "right" should not exist in the first place, and, 2) that she can always go to another state if she wishes to have that "right". just as I can go to a different state than NY if I wish to have the right to carry a concealed weapon. they can pay for their own fees, just as any other person can and should, and the Supreme Court is known for changing it's mind. 1) Now you're talking about counties. No state can ban alcohol. Country ordinances are a whole different level of government. Because driving to another county to find access to something you want is a lot easier than driving to another state -- which is just one of many reasons why counties are allowed to make stern regulations that the State can not. Your analogy failed. This isn't about "county" rights, it's about State's rights. 2)The Civil War was a State's rights issue. States wanted freedom to define slavery for themselves, but how could a country operate with states being so completely at odds with each other's rights? Abortion might not be as divisive or morally black-and-white as slavery, but to have states deciding for themselves whether to allow abortion or not would create a completely unnecessary divide between our states. And for what purpose? What good does it do for Texas to ban abortion and force its women to travel to another state to have the procedure anyways? That is obviously the only reason I brought up the Civil War in my original post in this discussion. You chose to infer something racist. I can't help that, but I will point out your defensiveness. If you don't want to talk about racism, then don't bring it up. But since you did bring up racism, I'll gladly ask why. 3) I said the conservative Supreme Court agrees with me, and it does. I did not, ever, ever say all the members of the court agree with me, don't put words in my mouth because your point failed. The Supreme Court, which is majority conservative, is upholding Roe V. Wade. 4) Again, we're talking about a medical procedure. What if the women is having difficulty with her pregnancy, and the cross-country trip to have an abortion might put her life at further risk? Why create this problem? Why make this hardship for women? Because you care about State's rights? Really? 1) I brought up counties as an example. you also ignored all the other points I made. as far as I know, there is nothing legally stopping a state from banning alcohol. can you, perhaps, cite some case or legislation that leads you to that conclusion? 2) this argument you've now proposed has nothing to do with the Civil War, but is merely an argument about the validity of a state's right to control abortion. no need to appeal to an irrelevant Civil War that has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. on the topic of racism, I will say that one should be brave enough to stand by one's implications. you made, and continue to make, and obvious implication that I am racist. I just called you on it. 3) when did the Supreme Court as it currently is (not very Conservative, see: Obamacare) uphold Roe? I wasn't aware that they had even decided on Roe? and I do apologize for misunderstanding your original statement, my bad. 4) and now we've moved away from: "states right's don't exist" to "I think abortion shouldn't be a state's rights issue." well, I think that's a perfectly valid position to hold. I just happen to disagree.
|
On October 23 2012 04:54 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:34 Souma wrote:
I apologize to the world for these Americans. Apology accepted :D Also this must be a joke right? I read "first composed by Hannity" and I had to laugh the first time, then I watched the clips just for the heck of it - and 6-11 SECOND clips? Democracy, and common sense for that matter, is doomed if THIS is how political points are being made and discourse is being managed.
The nuances and honesty in any point you can boil down to 2 minutes of speach is questionable. The honesty of TV-discourse where "If you cannot make a point in 30 seconds max, do not mention it", is not very good. Less than 15 seconds is straight up void of context. Deep journalism and a lot of education of the viewer is the only hope for honesty. Maybe in time, it can enter election cycles, maybe.
|
On October 23 2012 05:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 23 2012 04:54 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:26 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:08 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:56 Adreme wrote:On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:32 Jormundr wrote:On October 23 2012 02:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
Roe was a terrible compromise, because it wasn't any kind of compromise. Ok Group A wants abortion to legal because they stress that both the life and liberty of the host are paramount Group B wants abortion to be illegal because they stress that the life of the fetus is paramount Government body says that abortion is only legal from point A to point B (Point B being the end of the first trimester) from points B-C (the last two trimesters) states have the right to make it legal or illegal except in the cases of incest and rape. That's a compromise. In fact it leans further numerically to the standpoint of group B. You may not like the compromise, but it is in fact a compromise between the two opposing ideologies which attempts to preserve the life and liberty of both the parent and the fetus. compromise would be to allow the states to decide, not to, by fiat, have unelected officials determine that nationwide abortion is legal. That would a different compromise. You are offering a compromise over who whereas they compromised over when. in a situation where one side is saying: "never" and the other side is saying "sometimes" i don't see how it ending up being "sometimes" is all that much of a compromise.... On October 23 2012 03:57 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:32 Jormundr wrote:On October 23 2012 02:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
Roe was a terrible compromise, because it wasn't any kind of compromise. Ok Group A wants abortion to legal because they stress that both the life and liberty of the host are paramount Group B wants abortion to be illegal because they stress that the life of the fetus is paramount Government body says that abortion is only legal from point A to point B (Point B being the end of the first trimester) from points B-C (the last two trimesters) states have the right to make it legal or illegal except in the cases of incest and rape. That's a compromise. In fact it leans further numerically to the standpoint of group B. You may not like the compromise, but it is in fact a compromise between the two opposing ideologies which attempts to preserve the life and liberty of both the parent and the fetus. compromise would be to allow the states to decide, not to, by fiat, have unelected officials determine that nationwide abortion is legal. You're talking about a right to a medical procedure. That is NOT how we decide rights in this country. Women with rights in one state, but without rights in another state? Where do you get these ideas? If a woman has a right to abortion -- then that applies to all women, everywhere in this country. state's rights is not some new issue. it is, in fact, older than this country. so, you'll forgive me for assuming that the position of a state's rights proponent is valid, considering the fact that it has remained a concern for many in this country for the last 250 years... Sorry, but no. States have some rights to make their own legislation -- but that has never and should never include matters of civil rights. Unless you're a Confederate, I guess. But you guys lost that war, so guess what, civil rights are not decided by states anymore. edit: In closing, I'll just point to the fact that even our conservative Supreme Court agrees with me on this, especially in regards to abortion. You can not deny women in certain states a right that other women in America have. It is disgustingly unfair that a woman should be denied a medical procedure based on what state she lives in. ok, i'm gonna take these points one by one: 1) states have always had the right to choose, to some degree, which "civil rights" they consider to be valid and which they do not. capital punishment is a good example, as is the Mass. "Romneycare" issue. Drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are other issues of "civil rights" that have, traditionally, been left largely to the states. you're history is flawed here. 2) I am a Republican, we fought the Confederates in the Civil War and in the Civil Rights battle. besides this is an ad hominem attack. also, to suggest that only Confederates (racists is what you really meant) would hold a position that promotes state's rights is... well, let's just say that is isn't exactly intellectually honest. 3) Clarence Thomas in particular has mentioned that the Roe decision was an overreach of federal authority. this claim that every conservative Justice agrees with you is wildly false. 4) States can, and do, provide different rights to the citizens of their state. this is a tradition older than this country. again, you are in the wrong historically. You're trying really hard to not understand the abortion issue. 1)Yes, states have some individuality when it comes legislation. But not when it comes to rights. No state can ban alcohol, but they can limit its sale. States can decide whether to execute people for capital crimes, but that only directly effects the offenders and no one else. No rights are being decided here. Whereas with abortion, you are telling all the women of one state that they can't have a medical procedure that other women in the country do have a right to. That's wrong, and the Supreme Court agrees with me. 2)You inferred all that. My only point was the Civil War was fought over this very issue. States do not have the right to legislate their own Bill of Rights. Basic rights are something we need to share, as a nation, or they don't work. But if you want to think I called you a racist... well... then this conversation is at a loss, because I never came anywhere close to insinuating that. But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why. 3)Clarence Thomas is not the Supreme Court. 4)No, they don't. You're simply wrong. How do you justify telling women that they can't get a medical procedure that women all across the country are getting, because they happen to live in the wrong state? So they have to move to another state, or make the trip their to get a medical procedure? Who compensates them for that? It is plainly ridiculous and unfair to say that women's right to abortion should be divided by state lines. And, yes, the Supreme Court agrees with me 1) many counties have banned alcohol. capital punishment effects everyone (see: deterrence and/or cost of maintenance). also, it has long been held that prisoners/criminals do have rights and that Capital punishment does concern these rights. the current Supreme Court agrees with you, but the Courts have been known to change positions, and also have been known to be in the wrong on the issue of civil rights. (see Dredd Scott) appealing to the Supreme Court is simply a fallacious appeal to authority. 2) the Civil War was fought over the specific right of the states to 1) protect slavery and 2) secede from the Union. at no point was it ever considered that it was a fight over the broad rights of states to determine what constitutes a civil right and what doesn't. nor was it held to have ended the discussion over what constitutes a "basic right" and what doesn't. you called me a Confederate, obviously appealing toward the racism that they held. you again insinuated it with this comment: "But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why." 3) You made the claim that all conservative members of the Supreme Court agree with you. Clarence Thomas is a Justice who disagrees with you, thus his disagreement is all I need to prove this assertion false. further, I am not aware that any conservative (or liberal for that matter) on the Court agrees with your strange perception of states rights. 4) this isn't even arguable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)http://www.aclu.org/know-your-voting-rights-state-state-voter-informationI justify it by saying: 1) the "right" should not exist in the first place, and, 2) that she can always go to another state if she wishes to have that "right". just as I can go to a different state than NY if I wish to have the right to carry a concealed weapon. they can pay for their own fees, just as any other person can and should, and the Supreme Court is known for changing it's mind. 1) Now you're talking about counties. No state can ban alcohol. Country ordinances are a whole different level of government. Because driving to another county to find access to something you want is a lot easier than driving to another state -- which is just one of many reasons why counties are allowed to make stern regulations that the State can not. Your analogy failed. This isn't about "county" rights, it's about State's rights. 2)The Civil War was a State's rights issue. States wanted freedom to define slavery for themselves, but how could a country operate with states being so completely at odds with each other's rights? Abortion might not be as divisive or morally black-and-white as slavery, but to have states deciding for themselves whether to allow abortion or not would create a completely unnecessary divide between our states. And for what purpose? What good does it do for Texas to ban abortion and force its women to travel to another state to have the procedure anyways? That is obviously the only reason I brought up the Civil War in my original post in this discussion. You chose to infer something racist. I can't help that, but I will point out your defensiveness. If you don't want to talk about racism, then don't bring it up. But since you did bring up racism, I'll gladly ask why. 3) I said the conservative Supreme Court agrees with me, and it does. I did not, ever, ever say all the members of the court agree with me, don't put words in my mouth because your point failed. The Supreme Court, which is majority conservative, is upholding Roe V. Wade. 4) Again, we're talking about a medical procedure. What if the women is having difficulty with her pregnancy, and the cross-country trip to have an abortion might put her life at further risk? Why create this problem? Why make this hardship for women? Because you care about State's rights? Really? 1) I brought up counties as an example. you also ignored all the other points I made. as far as I know, there is nothing legally stopping a state from banning alcohol. can you, perhaps, cite some case or legislation that leads you to that conclusion? 2) this argument you've now proposed has nothing to do with the Civil War, but is merely an argument about the validity of a state's right to control abortion. no need to appeal to an irrelevant Civil War that has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. on the topic of racism, I will say that one should be brave enough to stand by one's implications. you made, and continue to make, and obvious implication that I am racist. I just called you on it. 3) when did the Supreme Court as it currently is (not very Conservative, see: Obamacare) uphold Roe? I wasn't aware that they had even decided on Roe? and I do apologize for misunderstanding your original statement, my bad. 4) and now we've moved away from: "states right's don't exist" to "I think abortion shouldn't be a state's rights issue." well, I think that's a perfectly valid position to hold. I just happen to disagree.
sc2superfan, read our posts again, I never said you were racist or even brought it up. You did. I brought up the Civil War and said you might be Confederate based on your idea of States having absolute say in what people's rights are.
You took that at a racist implication. I don't have to "stand by it", because I never said it. You did. I do not think you're a racist, but I do think you're strongly desperate to steer the conversation. So we're done.
And thank God the Supreme Court agrees with me and not you on this issue. The problems overturning Roe v. Wade would create are immeasurable and there is no benefit to the trade-off. If you don't like abortion, then argue against abortion. Arguing about it from the perspective of "state's rights" is a complete cop-out.
Medical procedures are legal for all people in this country, or they're legal for no one. There are no state lines on that issue, and it's a disgusting idea to think there ought to be.
edit: and to address another point in your post, no, you're wrong, states can't, in reality, ban alcohol. They could try, they could absolutely write a law banning alcohol, but the Supreme Court would overturn them.
That's what it's there for.
|
On October 23 2012 04:54 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:26 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:08 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:56 Adreme wrote:On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:32 Jormundr wrote:On October 23 2012 02:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
Roe was a terrible compromise, because it wasn't any kind of compromise. Ok Group A wants abortion to legal because they stress that both the life and liberty of the host are paramount Group B wants abortion to be illegal because they stress that the life of the fetus is paramount Government body says that abortion is only legal from point A to point B (Point B being the end of the first trimester) from points B-C (the last two trimesters) states have the right to make it legal or illegal except in the cases of incest and rape. That's a compromise. In fact it leans further numerically to the standpoint of group B. You may not like the compromise, but it is in fact a compromise between the two opposing ideologies which attempts to preserve the life and liberty of both the parent and the fetus. compromise would be to allow the states to decide, not to, by fiat, have unelected officials determine that nationwide abortion is legal. That would a different compromise. You are offering a compromise over who whereas they compromised over when. in a situation where one side is saying: "never" and the other side is saying "sometimes" i don't see how it ending up being "sometimes" is all that much of a compromise.... On October 23 2012 03:57 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:32 Jormundr wrote:On October 23 2012 02:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
Roe was a terrible compromise, because it wasn't any kind of compromise. Ok Group A wants abortion to legal because they stress that both the life and liberty of the host are paramount Group B wants abortion to be illegal because they stress that the life of the fetus is paramount Government body says that abortion is only legal from point A to point B (Point B being the end of the first trimester) from points B-C (the last two trimesters) states have the right to make it legal or illegal except in the cases of incest and rape. That's a compromise. In fact it leans further numerically to the standpoint of group B. You may not like the compromise, but it is in fact a compromise between the two opposing ideologies which attempts to preserve the life and liberty of both the parent and the fetus. compromise would be to allow the states to decide, not to, by fiat, have unelected officials determine that nationwide abortion is legal. You're talking about a right to a medical procedure. That is NOT how we decide rights in this country. Women with rights in one state, but without rights in another state? Where do you get these ideas? If a woman has a right to abortion -- then that applies to all women, everywhere in this country. state's rights is not some new issue. it is, in fact, older than this country. so, you'll forgive me for assuming that the position of a state's rights proponent is valid, considering the fact that it has remained a concern for many in this country for the last 250 years... Sorry, but no. States have some rights to make their own legislation -- but that has never and should never include matters of civil rights. Unless you're a Confederate, I guess. But you guys lost that war, so guess what, civil rights are not decided by states anymore. edit: In closing, I'll just point to the fact that even our conservative Supreme Court agrees with me on this, especially in regards to abortion. You can not deny women in certain states a right that other women in America have. It is disgustingly unfair that a woman should be denied a medical procedure based on what state she lives in. ok, i'm gonna take these points one by one: 1) states have always had the right to choose, to some degree, which "civil rights" they consider to be valid and which they do not. capital punishment is a good example, as is the Mass. "Romneycare" issue. Drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are other issues of "civil rights" that have, traditionally, been left largely to the states. you're history is flawed here. 2) I am a Republican, we fought the Confederates in the Civil War and in the Civil Rights battle. besides this is an ad hominem attack. also, to suggest that only Confederates (racists is what you really meant) would hold a position that promotes state's rights is... well, let's just say that is isn't exactly intellectually honest. 3) Clarence Thomas in particular has mentioned that the Roe decision was an overreach of federal authority. this claim that every conservative Justice agrees with you is wildly false. 4) States can, and do, provide different rights to the citizens of their state. this is a tradition older than this country. again, you are in the wrong historically. You're trying really hard to not understand the abortion issue. 1)Yes, states have some individuality when it comes legislation. But not when it comes to rights. No state can ban alcohol, but they can limit its sale. States can decide whether to execute people for capital crimes, but that only directly effects the offenders and no one else. No rights are being decided here. Whereas with abortion, you are telling all the women of one state that they can't have a medical procedure that other women in the country do have a right to. That's wrong, and the Supreme Court agrees with me. 2)You inferred all that. My only point was the Civil War was fought over this very issue. States do not have the right to legislate their own Bill of Rights. Basic rights are something we need to share, as a nation, or they don't work. But if you want to think I called you a racist... well... then this conversation is at a loss, because I never came anywhere close to insinuating that. But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why. 3)Clarence Thomas is not the Supreme Court. 4)No, they don't. You're simply wrong. How do you justify telling women that they can't get a medical procedure that women all across the country are getting, because they happen to live in the wrong state? So they have to move to another state, or make the trip their to get a medical procedure? Who compensates them for that? It is plainly ridiculous and unfair to say that women's right to abortion should be divided by state lines. And, yes, the Supreme Court agrees with me 1) many counties have banned alcohol. capital punishment effects everyone (see: deterrence and/or cost of maintenance). also, it has long been held that prisoners/criminals do have rights and that Capital punishment does concern these rights. the current Supreme Court agrees with you, but the Courts have been known to change positions, and also have been known to be in the wrong on the issue of civil rights. (see Dredd Scott) appealing to the Supreme Court is simply a fallacious appeal to authority. 2) the Civil War was fought over the specific right of the states to 1) protect slavery and 2) secede from the Union. at no point was it ever considered that it was a fight over the broad rights of states to determine what constitutes a civil right and what doesn't. nor was it held to have ended the discussion over what constitutes a "basic right" and what doesn't. you called me a Confederate, obviously appealing toward the racism that they held. you again insinuated it with this comment: "But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why." 3) You made the claim that all conservative members of the Supreme Court agree with you. Clarence Thomas is a Justice who disagrees with you, thus his disagreement is all I need to prove this assertion false. further, I am not aware that any conservative (or liberal for that matter) on the Court agrees with your strange perception of states rights. 4) this isn't even arguable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)http://www.aclu.org/know-your-voting-rights-state-state-voter-informationI justify it by saying: 1) the "right" should not exist in the first place, and, 2) that she can always go to another state if she wishes to have that "right". just as I can go to a different state than NY if I wish to have the right to carry a concealed weapon. they can pay for their own fees, just as any other person can and should, and the Supreme Court is known for changing it's mind. 1) Now you're talking about counties. No state can ban alcohol. Country ordinances are a whole different level of government. Because driving to another county to find access to something you want is a lot easier than driving to another state -- which is just one of many reasons why counties are allowed to make stern regulations that the State can not. Your analogy failed. This isn't about "county" rights, it's about State's rights. 2)The Civil War was a State's rights issue. States wanted freedom to define slavery for themselves, but how could a country operate with states being so completely at odds with each other's rights? Abortion might not be as divisive or morally black-and-white as slavery, but to have states deciding for themselves whether to allow abortion or not would create a completely unnecessary divide between our states. And for what purpose? What good does it do for Texas to ban abortion and force its women to travel to another state to have the procedure anyways? That is obviously the only reason I brought up the Civil War in my original post in this discussion. You chose to infer something racist. I can't help that, but I will point out your defensiveness. If you don't want to talk about racism, then don't bring it up. But since you did bring up racism, I'll gladly ask why. 3) I said the conservative Supreme Court agrees with me, and it does. I did not, ever, ever say all the members of the court agree with me, don't put words in my mouth because your point failed. The Supreme Court, which is majority conservative, is upholding Roe V. Wade. 4) Again, we're talking about a medical procedure. What if the women is having difficulty with her pregnancy, and the cross-country trip to have an abortion might put her life at further risk? Why create this problem? Why make this hardship for women? Because you care about State's rights? Really?
1. This is wrong. Counties are subsets of State governments, and therefore anything vested into a county government is actually a state power. He was right. The reason this is allowed is that no state (that I'm aware of) has a law mandating that alcohol is legal. Therefore there is no supremacy issue when the county bans it.
You keep talking about rights and federal power, yet it's patently clear you know nothing about the issue. Please stop lecturing.
|
if you weren't implying racism than I apologize. however, it is an extremely common tactic, while arguing with Republicans/conservatives who support state's rights to try to paint them as racist holdovers from the Confederacy. given the prevalence of that insult, it is not a very long jump to think that you might be trying to make that point. perhaps I was too sensitive though, and I will try to not be so sensitive in the future.
as I said earlier, I am not sure that the Supreme Court does necessarily agree with you on this issue. there has been a growing concern among the populace and legal community that Roe was an overreach of federal power, particularly of the Courts. the expansion of judicial power in this country is not a debate that is closed by any means, and I would definitely like to know where Romney and Obama feel on the issue of judicial authority over the matter of abortion.
as for my arguing it on a state's rights level being a cop-out, I could turn that around on you. if you agree with abortion, than what is the problem with legislating it? why do you have to use the power of the unelected Judicial branch to support the existence of the "right"? I could, and do, argue that appealing to the Courts is a cop-out because it would be near impossible to legislate abortion through Congress. it was, and is, far too unpopular a position to hold.
|
On October 23 2012 05:20 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:54 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:26 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:08 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:56 Adreme wrote:On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:32 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Ok
Group A wants abortion to legal because they stress that both the life and liberty of the host are paramount
Group B wants abortion to be illegal because they stress that the life of the fetus is paramount
Government body says that abortion is only legal from point A to point B (Point B being the end of the first trimester) from points B-C (the last two trimesters) states have the right to make it legal or illegal except in the cases of incest and rape.
That's a compromise. In fact it leans further numerically to the standpoint of group B.
You may not like the compromise, but it is in fact a compromise between the two opposing ideologies which attempts to preserve the life and liberty of both the parent and the fetus.
compromise would be to allow the states to decide, not to, by fiat, have unelected officials determine that nationwide abortion is legal. That would a different compromise. You are offering a compromise over who whereas they compromised over when. in a situation where one side is saying: "never" and the other side is saying "sometimes" i don't see how it ending up being "sometimes" is all that much of a compromise.... On October 23 2012 03:57 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:32 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Ok
Group A wants abortion to legal because they stress that both the life and liberty of the host are paramount
Group B wants abortion to be illegal because they stress that the life of the fetus is paramount
Government body says that abortion is only legal from point A to point B (Point B being the end of the first trimester) from points B-C (the last two trimesters) states have the right to make it legal or illegal except in the cases of incest and rape.
That's a compromise. In fact it leans further numerically to the standpoint of group B.
You may not like the compromise, but it is in fact a compromise between the two opposing ideologies which attempts to preserve the life and liberty of both the parent and the fetus.
compromise would be to allow the states to decide, not to, by fiat, have unelected officials determine that nationwide abortion is legal. You're talking about a right to a medical procedure. That is NOT how we decide rights in this country. Women with rights in one state, but without rights in another state? Where do you get these ideas? If a woman has a right to abortion -- then that applies to all women, everywhere in this country. state's rights is not some new issue. it is, in fact, older than this country. so, you'll forgive me for assuming that the position of a state's rights proponent is valid, considering the fact that it has remained a concern for many in this country for the last 250 years... Sorry, but no. States have some rights to make their own legislation -- but that has never and should never include matters of civil rights. Unless you're a Confederate, I guess. But you guys lost that war, so guess what, civil rights are not decided by states anymore. edit: In closing, I'll just point to the fact that even our conservative Supreme Court agrees with me on this, especially in regards to abortion. You can not deny women in certain states a right that other women in America have. It is disgustingly unfair that a woman should be denied a medical procedure based on what state she lives in. ok, i'm gonna take these points one by one: 1) states have always had the right to choose, to some degree, which "civil rights" they consider to be valid and which they do not. capital punishment is a good example, as is the Mass. "Romneycare" issue. Drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are other issues of "civil rights" that have, traditionally, been left largely to the states. you're history is flawed here. 2) I am a Republican, we fought the Confederates in the Civil War and in the Civil Rights battle. besides this is an ad hominem attack. also, to suggest that only Confederates (racists is what you really meant) would hold a position that promotes state's rights is... well, let's just say that is isn't exactly intellectually honest. 3) Clarence Thomas in particular has mentioned that the Roe decision was an overreach of federal authority. this claim that every conservative Justice agrees with you is wildly false. 4) States can, and do, provide different rights to the citizens of their state. this is a tradition older than this country. again, you are in the wrong historically. You're trying really hard to not understand the abortion issue. 1)Yes, states have some individuality when it comes legislation. But not when it comes to rights. No state can ban alcohol, but they can limit its sale. States can decide whether to execute people for capital crimes, but that only directly effects the offenders and no one else. No rights are being decided here. Whereas with abortion, you are telling all the women of one state that they can't have a medical procedure that other women in the country do have a right to. That's wrong, and the Supreme Court agrees with me. 2)You inferred all that. My only point was the Civil War was fought over this very issue. States do not have the right to legislate their own Bill of Rights. Basic rights are something we need to share, as a nation, or they don't work. But if you want to think I called you a racist... well... then this conversation is at a loss, because I never came anywhere close to insinuating that. But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why. 3)Clarence Thomas is not the Supreme Court. 4)No, they don't. You're simply wrong. How do you justify telling women that they can't get a medical procedure that women all across the country are getting, because they happen to live in the wrong state? So they have to move to another state, or make the trip their to get a medical procedure? Who compensates them for that? It is plainly ridiculous and unfair to say that women's right to abortion should be divided by state lines. And, yes, the Supreme Court agrees with me 1) many counties have banned alcohol. capital punishment effects everyone (see: deterrence and/or cost of maintenance). also, it has long been held that prisoners/criminals do have rights and that Capital punishment does concern these rights. the current Supreme Court agrees with you, but the Courts have been known to change positions, and also have been known to be in the wrong on the issue of civil rights. (see Dredd Scott) appealing to the Supreme Court is simply a fallacious appeal to authority. 2) the Civil War was fought over the specific right of the states to 1) protect slavery and 2) secede from the Union. at no point was it ever considered that it was a fight over the broad rights of states to determine what constitutes a civil right and what doesn't. nor was it held to have ended the discussion over what constitutes a "basic right" and what doesn't. you called me a Confederate, obviously appealing toward the racism that they held. you again insinuated it with this comment: "But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why." 3) You made the claim that all conservative members of the Supreme Court agree with you. Clarence Thomas is a Justice who disagrees with you, thus his disagreement is all I need to prove this assertion false. further, I am not aware that any conservative (or liberal for that matter) on the Court agrees with your strange perception of states rights. 4) this isn't even arguable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)http://www.aclu.org/know-your-voting-rights-state-state-voter-informationI justify it by saying: 1) the "right" should not exist in the first place, and, 2) that she can always go to another state if she wishes to have that "right". just as I can go to a different state than NY if I wish to have the right to carry a concealed weapon. they can pay for their own fees, just as any other person can and should, and the Supreme Court is known for changing it's mind. 1) Now you're talking about counties. No state can ban alcohol. Country ordinances are a whole different level of government. Because driving to another county to find access to something you want is a lot easier than driving to another state -- which is just one of many reasons why counties are allowed to make stern regulations that the State can not. Your analogy failed. This isn't about "county" rights, it's about State's rights. 2)The Civil War was a State's rights issue. States wanted freedom to define slavery for themselves, but how could a country operate with states being so completely at odds with each other's rights? Abortion might not be as divisive or morally black-and-white as slavery, but to have states deciding for themselves whether to allow abortion or not would create a completely unnecessary divide between our states. And for what purpose? What good does it do for Texas to ban abortion and force its women to travel to another state to have the procedure anyways? That is obviously the only reason I brought up the Civil War in my original post in this discussion. You chose to infer something racist. I can't help that, but I will point out your defensiveness. If you don't want to talk about racism, then don't bring it up. But since you did bring up racism, I'll gladly ask why. 3) I said the conservative Supreme Court agrees with me, and it does. I did not, ever, ever say all the members of the court agree with me, don't put words in my mouth because your point failed. The Supreme Court, which is majority conservative, is upholding Roe V. Wade. 4) Again, we're talking about a medical procedure. What if the women is having difficulty with her pregnancy, and the cross-country trip to have an abortion might put her life at further risk? Why create this problem? Why make this hardship for women? Because you care about State's rights? Really? 1. This is wrong. Counties are subsets of State governments, and therefore anything vested into a county government is actually a state power. He was right. The reason this is allowed is that no state (that I'm aware of) has a law mandating that alcohol is legal. Therefore there is no supremacy issue when the county bans it. You keep talking about rights and federal power, yet it's patently clear you know nothing about the issue. Please stop lecturing.
You could also stop being so fucking condescending, it would make this thread nicer to read.
|
On October 23 2012 05:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 05:20 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 04:54 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:26 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:08 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:56 Adreme wrote:On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
compromise would be to allow the states to decide, not to, by fiat, have unelected officials determine that nationwide abortion is legal. That would a different compromise. You are offering a compromise over who whereas they compromised over when. in a situation where one side is saying: "never" and the other side is saying "sometimes" i don't see how it ending up being "sometimes" is all that much of a compromise.... On October 23 2012 03:57 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
compromise would be to allow the states to decide, not to, by fiat, have unelected officials determine that nationwide abortion is legal. You're talking about a right to a medical procedure. That is NOT how we decide rights in this country. Women with rights in one state, but without rights in another state? Where do you get these ideas? If a woman has a right to abortion -- then that applies to all women, everywhere in this country. state's rights is not some new issue. it is, in fact, older than this country. so, you'll forgive me for assuming that the position of a state's rights proponent is valid, considering the fact that it has remained a concern for many in this country for the last 250 years... Sorry, but no. States have some rights to make their own legislation -- but that has never and should never include matters of civil rights. Unless you're a Confederate, I guess. But you guys lost that war, so guess what, civil rights are not decided by states anymore. edit: In closing, I'll just point to the fact that even our conservative Supreme Court agrees with me on this, especially in regards to abortion. You can not deny women in certain states a right that other women in America have. It is disgustingly unfair that a woman should be denied a medical procedure based on what state she lives in. ok, i'm gonna take these points one by one: 1) states have always had the right to choose, to some degree, which "civil rights" they consider to be valid and which they do not. capital punishment is a good example, as is the Mass. "Romneycare" issue. Drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are other issues of "civil rights" that have, traditionally, been left largely to the states. you're history is flawed here. 2) I am a Republican, we fought the Confederates in the Civil War and in the Civil Rights battle. besides this is an ad hominem attack. also, to suggest that only Confederates (racists is what you really meant) would hold a position that promotes state's rights is... well, let's just say that is isn't exactly intellectually honest. 3) Clarence Thomas in particular has mentioned that the Roe decision was an overreach of federal authority. this claim that every conservative Justice agrees with you is wildly false. 4) States can, and do, provide different rights to the citizens of their state. this is a tradition older than this country. again, you are in the wrong historically. You're trying really hard to not understand the abortion issue. 1)Yes, states have some individuality when it comes legislation. But not when it comes to rights. No state can ban alcohol, but they can limit its sale. States can decide whether to execute people for capital crimes, but that only directly effects the offenders and no one else. No rights are being decided here. Whereas with abortion, you are telling all the women of one state that they can't have a medical procedure that other women in the country do have a right to. That's wrong, and the Supreme Court agrees with me. 2)You inferred all that. My only point was the Civil War was fought over this very issue. States do not have the right to legislate their own Bill of Rights. Basic rights are something we need to share, as a nation, or they don't work. But if you want to think I called you a racist... well... then this conversation is at a loss, because I never came anywhere close to insinuating that. But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why. 3)Clarence Thomas is not the Supreme Court. 4)No, they don't. You're simply wrong. How do you justify telling women that they can't get a medical procedure that women all across the country are getting, because they happen to live in the wrong state? So they have to move to another state, or make the trip their to get a medical procedure? Who compensates them for that? It is plainly ridiculous and unfair to say that women's right to abortion should be divided by state lines. And, yes, the Supreme Court agrees with me 1) many counties have banned alcohol. capital punishment effects everyone (see: deterrence and/or cost of maintenance). also, it has long been held that prisoners/criminals do have rights and that Capital punishment does concern these rights. the current Supreme Court agrees with you, but the Courts have been known to change positions, and also have been known to be in the wrong on the issue of civil rights. (see Dredd Scott) appealing to the Supreme Court is simply a fallacious appeal to authority. 2) the Civil War was fought over the specific right of the states to 1) protect slavery and 2) secede from the Union. at no point was it ever considered that it was a fight over the broad rights of states to determine what constitutes a civil right and what doesn't. nor was it held to have ended the discussion over what constitutes a "basic right" and what doesn't. you called me a Confederate, obviously appealing toward the racism that they held. you again insinuated it with this comment: "But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why." 3) You made the claim that all conservative members of the Supreme Court agree with you. Clarence Thomas is a Justice who disagrees with you, thus his disagreement is all I need to prove this assertion false. further, I am not aware that any conservative (or liberal for that matter) on the Court agrees with your strange perception of states rights. 4) this isn't even arguable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)http://www.aclu.org/know-your-voting-rights-state-state-voter-informationI justify it by saying: 1) the "right" should not exist in the first place, and, 2) that she can always go to another state if she wishes to have that "right". just as I can go to a different state than NY if I wish to have the right to carry a concealed weapon. they can pay for their own fees, just as any other person can and should, and the Supreme Court is known for changing it's mind. 1) Now you're talking about counties. No state can ban alcohol. Country ordinances are a whole different level of government. Because driving to another county to find access to something you want is a lot easier than driving to another state -- which is just one of many reasons why counties are allowed to make stern regulations that the State can not. Your analogy failed. This isn't about "county" rights, it's about State's rights. 2)The Civil War was a State's rights issue. States wanted freedom to define slavery for themselves, but how could a country operate with states being so completely at odds with each other's rights? Abortion might not be as divisive or morally black-and-white as slavery, but to have states deciding for themselves whether to allow abortion or not would create a completely unnecessary divide between our states. And for what purpose? What good does it do for Texas to ban abortion and force its women to travel to another state to have the procedure anyways? That is obviously the only reason I brought up the Civil War in my original post in this discussion. You chose to infer something racist. I can't help that, but I will point out your defensiveness. If you don't want to talk about racism, then don't bring it up. But since you did bring up racism, I'll gladly ask why. 3) I said the conservative Supreme Court agrees with me, and it does. I did not, ever, ever say all the members of the court agree with me, don't put words in my mouth because your point failed. The Supreme Court, which is majority conservative, is upholding Roe V. Wade. 4) Again, we're talking about a medical procedure. What if the women is having difficulty with her pregnancy, and the cross-country trip to have an abortion might put her life at further risk? Why create this problem? Why make this hardship for women? Because you care about State's rights? Really? 1. This is wrong. Counties are subsets of State governments, and therefore anything vested into a county government is actually a state power. He was right. The reason this is allowed is that no state (that I'm aware of) has a law mandating that alcohol is legal. Therefore there is no supremacy issue when the county bans it. You keep talking about rights and federal power, yet it's patently clear you know nothing about the issue. Please stop lecturing. You could also stop being so fucking condescending, it would make this thread nicer to read.
I was nice the first two times.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I think alcohol was a bad example. States can ban alcohol if they wanted to, couldn't they? There is no federal law that mandates otherwise afaik.
|
I've dragged this thread into the gutter long enough:
my debate predictions:
I think Republicans are in a dangerous position right now. Obama is by no means beaten, and though he is weak, he is still in a position of power and still has some flexibility. Romney has to accomplish two things (IMO) with this debate:
1) he must solidify the perception that Obama is both weak and dishonest about his foreign policy (and that this can be carried over to his domestic policy)
2) he must maintain his own likability, and hopefully make gains in presenting himself as a viable alternative to Obama.
foreign policy is always a tough one, for both sides. Obama can't risk looking weak or soft, but then Romney can't risk losing his "relatively moderate" image. if he comes out looking like he wants war (Romney), than this could be a very bad debate for the GOP, in both the Senate and the Pres. election. on the other hand, if Obama comes out looking confused or soft, than it is possible that he could be toppled tonight. the killing of Osama bin Laden is definitely going to help Obama here, and I have a feeling that he's gonna hammer that home with everything he's got. (rightfully so, it is an accomplishment of sorts). Romney is going to have a pretty heavy challenge in trying to portray how the killing of Osama is not as important as Obama says, while not appearing to negate the value of taking out Enemy Number 1.
Romney: he's gonna hammer Libya, Fast and Furious, and Iran. he will try to show how there is a systematic failure of the Obama admin. to bring our enemies to justice or to bring our allies to the table. he will paint the chaos in the ME and in North-Africa as a natural result of Obama's policies and rhetoric.
Obama: he's going to have two objectives here. hit Romney with the recent info coming out of Libya (suggests that the video may have played a part) and drive home the image of Romney as both inexperienced and rash. he will need to deflect any and all questions and attacks on Fast&Furious, because this issue just isn't going to win him anything. the best he can hope for is that the focus remains off of it, as the Latino vote is going to be very important here.
I expect a tie or a Romney win (slight). Obama does better than the previous two debates, but not quite enough to heal all of the cuts he's taken. still, I expect the bleeding to have stopped by the nights end.
|
On October 23 2012 05:28 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 05:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2012 05:20 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 04:54 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:26 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:08 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:56 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
That would a different compromise. You are offering a compromise over who whereas they compromised over when. in a situation where one side is saying: "never" and the other side is saying "sometimes" i don't see how it ending up being "sometimes" is all that much of a compromise.... On October 23 2012 03:57 Leporello wrote:
[quote]
You're talking about a right to a medical procedure.
That is NOT how we decide rights in this country. Women with rights in one state, but without rights in another state? Where do you get these ideas? If a woman has a right to abortion -- then that applies to all women, everywhere in this country. state's rights is not some new issue. it is, in fact, older than this country. so, you'll forgive me for assuming that the position of a state's rights proponent is valid, considering the fact that it has remained a concern for many in this country for the last 250 years... Sorry, but no. States have some rights to make their own legislation -- but that has never and should never include matters of civil rights. Unless you're a Confederate, I guess. But you guys lost that war, so guess what, civil rights are not decided by states anymore. edit: In closing, I'll just point to the fact that even our conservative Supreme Court agrees with me on this, especially in regards to abortion. You can not deny women in certain states a right that other women in America have. It is disgustingly unfair that a woman should be denied a medical procedure based on what state she lives in. ok, i'm gonna take these points one by one: 1) states have always had the right to choose, to some degree, which "civil rights" they consider to be valid and which they do not. capital punishment is a good example, as is the Mass. "Romneycare" issue. Drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are other issues of "civil rights" that have, traditionally, been left largely to the states. you're history is flawed here. 2) I am a Republican, we fought the Confederates in the Civil War and in the Civil Rights battle. besides this is an ad hominem attack. also, to suggest that only Confederates (racists is what you really meant) would hold a position that promotes state's rights is... well, let's just say that is isn't exactly intellectually honest. 3) Clarence Thomas in particular has mentioned that the Roe decision was an overreach of federal authority. this claim that every conservative Justice agrees with you is wildly false. 4) States can, and do, provide different rights to the citizens of their state. this is a tradition older than this country. again, you are in the wrong historically. You're trying really hard to not understand the abortion issue. 1)Yes, states have some individuality when it comes legislation. But not when it comes to rights. No state can ban alcohol, but they can limit its sale. States can decide whether to execute people for capital crimes, but that only directly effects the offenders and no one else. No rights are being decided here. Whereas with abortion, you are telling all the women of one state that they can't have a medical procedure that other women in the country do have a right to. That's wrong, and the Supreme Court agrees with me. 2)You inferred all that. My only point was the Civil War was fought over this very issue. States do not have the right to legislate their own Bill of Rights. Basic rights are something we need to share, as a nation, or they don't work. But if you want to think I called you a racist... well... then this conversation is at a loss, because I never came anywhere close to insinuating that. But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why. 3)Clarence Thomas is not the Supreme Court. 4)No, they don't. You're simply wrong. How do you justify telling women that they can't get a medical procedure that women all across the country are getting, because they happen to live in the wrong state? So they have to move to another state, or make the trip their to get a medical procedure? Who compensates them for that? It is plainly ridiculous and unfair to say that women's right to abortion should be divided by state lines. And, yes, the Supreme Court agrees with me 1) many counties have banned alcohol. capital punishment effects everyone (see: deterrence and/or cost of maintenance). also, it has long been held that prisoners/criminals do have rights and that Capital punishment does concern these rights. the current Supreme Court agrees with you, but the Courts have been known to change positions, and also have been known to be in the wrong on the issue of civil rights. (see Dredd Scott) appealing to the Supreme Court is simply a fallacious appeal to authority. 2) the Civil War was fought over the specific right of the states to 1) protect slavery and 2) secede from the Union. at no point was it ever considered that it was a fight over the broad rights of states to determine what constitutes a civil right and what doesn't. nor was it held to have ended the discussion over what constitutes a "basic right" and what doesn't. you called me a Confederate, obviously appealing toward the racism that they held. you again insinuated it with this comment: "But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why." 3) You made the claim that all conservative members of the Supreme Court agree with you. Clarence Thomas is a Justice who disagrees with you, thus his disagreement is all I need to prove this assertion false. further, I am not aware that any conservative (or liberal for that matter) on the Court agrees with your strange perception of states rights. 4) this isn't even arguable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)http://www.aclu.org/know-your-voting-rights-state-state-voter-informationI justify it by saying: 1) the "right" should not exist in the first place, and, 2) that she can always go to another state if she wishes to have that "right". just as I can go to a different state than NY if I wish to have the right to carry a concealed weapon. they can pay for their own fees, just as any other person can and should, and the Supreme Court is known for changing it's mind. 1) Now you're talking about counties. No state can ban alcohol. Country ordinances are a whole different level of government. Because driving to another county to find access to something you want is a lot easier than driving to another state -- which is just one of many reasons why counties are allowed to make stern regulations that the State can not. Your analogy failed. This isn't about "county" rights, it's about State's rights. 2)The Civil War was a State's rights issue. States wanted freedom to define slavery for themselves, but how could a country operate with states being so completely at odds with each other's rights? Abortion might not be as divisive or morally black-and-white as slavery, but to have states deciding for themselves whether to allow abortion or not would create a completely unnecessary divide between our states. And for what purpose? What good does it do for Texas to ban abortion and force its women to travel to another state to have the procedure anyways? That is obviously the only reason I brought up the Civil War in my original post in this discussion. You chose to infer something racist. I can't help that, but I will point out your defensiveness. If you don't want to talk about racism, then don't bring it up. But since you did bring up racism, I'll gladly ask why. 3) I said the conservative Supreme Court agrees with me, and it does. I did not, ever, ever say all the members of the court agree with me, don't put words in my mouth because your point failed. The Supreme Court, which is majority conservative, is upholding Roe V. Wade. 4) Again, we're talking about a medical procedure. What if the women is having difficulty with her pregnancy, and the cross-country trip to have an abortion might put her life at further risk? Why create this problem? Why make this hardship for women? Because you care about State's rights? Really? 1. This is wrong. Counties are subsets of State governments, and therefore anything vested into a county government is actually a state power. He was right. The reason this is allowed is that no state (that I'm aware of) has a law mandating that alcohol is legal. Therefore there is no supremacy issue when the county bans it. You keep talking about rights and federal power, yet it's patently clear you know nothing about the issue. Please stop lecturing. You could also stop being so fucking condescending, it would make this thread nicer to read. I was nice the first two times.
The two first time of what?
|
On October 23 2012 05:20 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:54 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:26 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:08 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:56 Adreme wrote:On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:32 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Ok
Group A wants abortion to legal because they stress that both the life and liberty of the host are paramount
Group B wants abortion to be illegal because they stress that the life of the fetus is paramount
Government body says that abortion is only legal from point A to point B (Point B being the end of the first trimester) from points B-C (the last two trimesters) states have the right to make it legal or illegal except in the cases of incest and rape.
That's a compromise. In fact it leans further numerically to the standpoint of group B.
You may not like the compromise, but it is in fact a compromise between the two opposing ideologies which attempts to preserve the life and liberty of both the parent and the fetus.
compromise would be to allow the states to decide, not to, by fiat, have unelected officials determine that nationwide abortion is legal. That would a different compromise. You are offering a compromise over who whereas they compromised over when. in a situation where one side is saying: "never" and the other side is saying "sometimes" i don't see how it ending up being "sometimes" is all that much of a compromise.... On October 23 2012 03:57 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:32 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Ok
Group A wants abortion to legal because they stress that both the life and liberty of the host are paramount
Group B wants abortion to be illegal because they stress that the life of the fetus is paramount
Government body says that abortion is only legal from point A to point B (Point B being the end of the first trimester) from points B-C (the last two trimesters) states have the right to make it legal or illegal except in the cases of incest and rape.
That's a compromise. In fact it leans further numerically to the standpoint of group B.
You may not like the compromise, but it is in fact a compromise between the two opposing ideologies which attempts to preserve the life and liberty of both the parent and the fetus.
compromise would be to allow the states to decide, not to, by fiat, have unelected officials determine that nationwide abortion is legal. You're talking about a right to a medical procedure. That is NOT how we decide rights in this country. Women with rights in one state, but without rights in another state? Where do you get these ideas? If a woman has a right to abortion -- then that applies to all women, everywhere in this country. state's rights is not some new issue. it is, in fact, older than this country. so, you'll forgive me for assuming that the position of a state's rights proponent is valid, considering the fact that it has remained a concern for many in this country for the last 250 years... Sorry, but no. States have some rights to make their own legislation -- but that has never and should never include matters of civil rights. Unless you're a Confederate, I guess. But you guys lost that war, so guess what, civil rights are not decided by states anymore. edit: In closing, I'll just point to the fact that even our conservative Supreme Court agrees with me on this, especially in regards to abortion. You can not deny women in certain states a right that other women in America have. It is disgustingly unfair that a woman should be denied a medical procedure based on what state she lives in. ok, i'm gonna take these points one by one: 1) states have always had the right to choose, to some degree, which "civil rights" they consider to be valid and which they do not. capital punishment is a good example, as is the Mass. "Romneycare" issue. Drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are other issues of "civil rights" that have, traditionally, been left largely to the states. you're history is flawed here. 2) I am a Republican, we fought the Confederates in the Civil War and in the Civil Rights battle. besides this is an ad hominem attack. also, to suggest that only Confederates (racists is what you really meant) would hold a position that promotes state's rights is... well, let's just say that is isn't exactly intellectually honest. 3) Clarence Thomas in particular has mentioned that the Roe decision was an overreach of federal authority. this claim that every conservative Justice agrees with you is wildly false. 4) States can, and do, provide different rights to the citizens of their state. this is a tradition older than this country. again, you are in the wrong historically. You're trying really hard to not understand the abortion issue. 1)Yes, states have some individuality when it comes legislation. But not when it comes to rights. No state can ban alcohol, but they can limit its sale. States can decide whether to execute people for capital crimes, but that only directly effects the offenders and no one else. No rights are being decided here. Whereas with abortion, you are telling all the women of one state that they can't have a medical procedure that other women in the country do have a right to. That's wrong, and the Supreme Court agrees with me. 2)You inferred all that. My only point was the Civil War was fought over this very issue. States do not have the right to legislate their own Bill of Rights. Basic rights are something we need to share, as a nation, or they don't work. But if you want to think I called you a racist... well... then this conversation is at a loss, because I never came anywhere close to insinuating that. But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why. 3)Clarence Thomas is not the Supreme Court. 4)No, they don't. You're simply wrong. How do you justify telling women that they can't get a medical procedure that women all across the country are getting, because they happen to live in the wrong state? So they have to move to another state, or make the trip their to get a medical procedure? Who compensates them for that? It is plainly ridiculous and unfair to say that women's right to abortion should be divided by state lines. And, yes, the Supreme Court agrees with me 1) many counties have banned alcohol. capital punishment effects everyone (see: deterrence and/or cost of maintenance). also, it has long been held that prisoners/criminals do have rights and that Capital punishment does concern these rights. the current Supreme Court agrees with you, but the Courts have been known to change positions, and also have been known to be in the wrong on the issue of civil rights. (see Dredd Scott) appealing to the Supreme Court is simply a fallacious appeal to authority. 2) the Civil War was fought over the specific right of the states to 1) protect slavery and 2) secede from the Union. at no point was it ever considered that it was a fight over the broad rights of states to determine what constitutes a civil right and what doesn't. nor was it held to have ended the discussion over what constitutes a "basic right" and what doesn't. you called me a Confederate, obviously appealing toward the racism that they held. you again insinuated it with this comment: "But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why." 3) You made the claim that all conservative members of the Supreme Court agree with you. Clarence Thomas is a Justice who disagrees with you, thus his disagreement is all I need to prove this assertion false. further, I am not aware that any conservative (or liberal for that matter) on the Court agrees with your strange perception of states rights. 4) this isn't even arguable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)http://www.aclu.org/know-your-voting-rights-state-state-voter-informationI justify it by saying: 1) the "right" should not exist in the first place, and, 2) that she can always go to another state if she wishes to have that "right". just as I can go to a different state than NY if I wish to have the right to carry a concealed weapon. they can pay for their own fees, just as any other person can and should, and the Supreme Court is known for changing it's mind. 1) Now you're talking about counties. No state can ban alcohol. Country ordinances are a whole different level of government. Because driving to another county to find access to something you want is a lot easier than driving to another state -- which is just one of many reasons why counties are allowed to make stern regulations that the State can not. Your analogy failed. This isn't about "county" rights, it's about State's rights. 2)The Civil War was a State's rights issue. States wanted freedom to define slavery for themselves, but how could a country operate with states being so completely at odds with each other's rights? Abortion might not be as divisive or morally black-and-white as slavery, but to have states deciding for themselves whether to allow abortion or not would create a completely unnecessary divide between our states. And for what purpose? What good does it do for Texas to ban abortion and force its women to travel to another state to have the procedure anyways? That is obviously the only reason I brought up the Civil War in my original post in this discussion. You chose to infer something racist. I can't help that, but I will point out your defensiveness. If you don't want to talk about racism, then don't bring it up. But since you did bring up racism, I'll gladly ask why. 3) I said the conservative Supreme Court agrees with me, and it does. I did not, ever, ever say all the members of the court agree with me, don't put words in my mouth because your point failed. The Supreme Court, which is majority conservative, is upholding Roe V. Wade. 4) Again, we're talking about a medical procedure. What if the women is having difficulty with her pregnancy, and the cross-country trip to have an abortion might put her life at further risk? Why create this problem? Why make this hardship for women? Because you care about State's rights? Really? 1. This is wrong. Counties are subsets of State governments, and therefore anything vested into a county government is actually a state power. He was right. The reason this is allowed is that no state (that I'm aware of) has a law mandating that alcohol is legal. Therefore there is no supremacy issue when the county bans it. You keep talking about rights and federal power, yet it's patently clear you know nothing about the issue. Please stop lecturing.
No. Counties are subsets of the State, yes, but so what? A county banning alcohol is not the same as a state banning alcohol, obviously.
The Supreme Court could and would step in to overturn the State, whereas counties are subject to States' Supreme Courts.
You're arguing semantics at best here. A county can ban alcohol, but a state would surely be overturned in making such a decision. Are you arguing that county ordinances are of the same national importance as State's laws? Because that's what it sounds like.
Also, this is alcohol. Abortion is a medical procedure. Denying people medical procedures is a lot different than denying them alcohol, but on a State level -- not a local level -- neither would be permissible by our Supreme Court.
Some states come close to banning alcohol -- but they can only limit it. Whereas there are counties and towns all over the country that ban the sale of alcohol completely. State laws and local laws are not equivocal.
|
On October 23 2012 05:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 05:28 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 05:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2012 05:20 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 04:54 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:26 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:08 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
in a situation where one side is saying: "never" and the other side is saying "sometimes"
i don't see how it ending up being "sometimes" is all that much of a compromise....
[quote]
state's rights is not some new issue. it is, in fact, older than this country. so, you'll forgive me for assuming that the position of a state's rights proponent is valid, considering the fact that it has remained a concern for many in this country for the last 250 years...
Sorry, but no. States have some rights to make their own legislation -- but that has never and should never include matters of civil rights. Unless you're a Confederate, I guess. But you guys lost that war, so guess what, civil rights are not decided by states anymore. edit: In closing, I'll just point to the fact that even our conservative Supreme Court agrees with me on this, especially in regards to abortion. You can not deny women in certain states a right that other women in America have. It is disgustingly unfair that a woman should be denied a medical procedure based on what state she lives in. ok, i'm gonna take these points one by one: 1) states have always had the right to choose, to some degree, which "civil rights" they consider to be valid and which they do not. capital punishment is a good example, as is the Mass. "Romneycare" issue. Drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are other issues of "civil rights" that have, traditionally, been left largely to the states. you're history is flawed here. 2) I am a Republican, we fought the Confederates in the Civil War and in the Civil Rights battle. besides this is an ad hominem attack. also, to suggest that only Confederates (racists is what you really meant) would hold a position that promotes state's rights is... well, let's just say that is isn't exactly intellectually honest. 3) Clarence Thomas in particular has mentioned that the Roe decision was an overreach of federal authority. this claim that every conservative Justice agrees with you is wildly false. 4) States can, and do, provide different rights to the citizens of their state. this is a tradition older than this country. again, you are in the wrong historically. You're trying really hard to not understand the abortion issue. 1)Yes, states have some individuality when it comes legislation. But not when it comes to rights. No state can ban alcohol, but they can limit its sale. States can decide whether to execute people for capital crimes, but that only directly effects the offenders and no one else. No rights are being decided here. Whereas with abortion, you are telling all the women of one state that they can't have a medical procedure that other women in the country do have a right to. That's wrong, and the Supreme Court agrees with me. 2)You inferred all that. My only point was the Civil War was fought over this very issue. States do not have the right to legislate their own Bill of Rights. Basic rights are something we need to share, as a nation, or they don't work. But if you want to think I called you a racist... well... then this conversation is at a loss, because I never came anywhere close to insinuating that. But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why. 3)Clarence Thomas is not the Supreme Court. 4)No, they don't. You're simply wrong. How do you justify telling women that they can't get a medical procedure that women all across the country are getting, because they happen to live in the wrong state? So they have to move to another state, or make the trip their to get a medical procedure? Who compensates them for that? It is plainly ridiculous and unfair to say that women's right to abortion should be divided by state lines. And, yes, the Supreme Court agrees with me 1) many counties have banned alcohol. capital punishment effects everyone (see: deterrence and/or cost of maintenance). also, it has long been held that prisoners/criminals do have rights and that Capital punishment does concern these rights. the current Supreme Court agrees with you, but the Courts have been known to change positions, and also have been known to be in the wrong on the issue of civil rights. (see Dredd Scott) appealing to the Supreme Court is simply a fallacious appeal to authority. 2) the Civil War was fought over the specific right of the states to 1) protect slavery and 2) secede from the Union. at no point was it ever considered that it was a fight over the broad rights of states to determine what constitutes a civil right and what doesn't. nor was it held to have ended the discussion over what constitutes a "basic right" and what doesn't. you called me a Confederate, obviously appealing toward the racism that they held. you again insinuated it with this comment: "But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why." 3) You made the claim that all conservative members of the Supreme Court agree with you. Clarence Thomas is a Justice who disagrees with you, thus his disagreement is all I need to prove this assertion false. further, I am not aware that any conservative (or liberal for that matter) on the Court agrees with your strange perception of states rights. 4) this isn't even arguable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)http://www.aclu.org/know-your-voting-rights-state-state-voter-informationI justify it by saying: 1) the "right" should not exist in the first place, and, 2) that she can always go to another state if she wishes to have that "right". just as I can go to a different state than NY if I wish to have the right to carry a concealed weapon. they can pay for their own fees, just as any other person can and should, and the Supreme Court is known for changing it's mind. 1) Now you're talking about counties. No state can ban alcohol. Country ordinances are a whole different level of government. Because driving to another county to find access to something you want is a lot easier than driving to another state -- which is just one of many reasons why counties are allowed to make stern regulations that the State can not. Your analogy failed. This isn't about "county" rights, it's about State's rights. 2)The Civil War was a State's rights issue. States wanted freedom to define slavery for themselves, but how could a country operate with states being so completely at odds with each other's rights? Abortion might not be as divisive or morally black-and-white as slavery, but to have states deciding for themselves whether to allow abortion or not would create a completely unnecessary divide between our states. And for what purpose? What good does it do for Texas to ban abortion and force its women to travel to another state to have the procedure anyways? That is obviously the only reason I brought up the Civil War in my original post in this discussion. You chose to infer something racist. I can't help that, but I will point out your defensiveness. If you don't want to talk about racism, then don't bring it up. But since you did bring up racism, I'll gladly ask why. 3) I said the conservative Supreme Court agrees with me, and it does. I did not, ever, ever say all the members of the court agree with me, don't put words in my mouth because your point failed. The Supreme Court, which is majority conservative, is upholding Roe V. Wade. 4) Again, we're talking about a medical procedure. What if the women is having difficulty with her pregnancy, and the cross-country trip to have an abortion might put her life at further risk? Why create this problem? Why make this hardship for women? Because you care about State's rights? Really? 1. This is wrong. Counties are subsets of State governments, and therefore anything vested into a county government is actually a state power. He was right. The reason this is allowed is that no state (that I'm aware of) has a law mandating that alcohol is legal. Therefore there is no supremacy issue when the county bans it. You keep talking about rights and federal power, yet it's patently clear you know nothing about the issue. Please stop lecturing. You could also stop being so fucking condescending, it would make this thread nicer to read. I was nice the first two times. The two first time of what?
BluePanther seems to be trying to tell us in quasi-Freudian language that he dealt with a stern and belligerent authority figure while growing up, but maybe that's just me.
|
On October 23 2012 05:32 Souma wrote:
I think alcohol was a bad example. States can ban alcohol if they wanted to, couldn't they? There is no federal law that mandates otherwise afaik.
Some states still have it banned. Still there from prohibition.
|
On October 23 2012 05:42 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 05:32 Souma wrote:
I think alcohol was a bad example. States can ban alcohol if they wanted to, couldn't they? There is no federal law that mandates otherwise afaik. Some states still have it banned. Still there from prohibition.
He means counties, I think.
|
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you."
|
This last debate is going to be really really big I think. The polls say that its all tied up so if anything really explosive happens it might very well decide the race. Romney has got the momentum, ammunition, and the opertunity to deliver a knockout blow to obama and really swing the race into his favor for the first time.
However I don't think Obama is going to go down without a fight. Even a tie at this point is a win for Obama because of how stacked the electoral math is in his favor right now. all Obama needs right now is to win Ohio Florida Virginia or nor car while romney has to win them all.
I personally think that the Fast and furious and any attacks on the administrations mexico policies will be the most important. If obama can parry romney's jabs on this and retort in kind hes going to be on the road to a second term in no time.
|
A more interesting comparison than alcohol would be medical marijuana.
Look at California's struggles with medical marijuana. Is it legal? The state says "yes", but the DEA arrests medical marijuana dispenseries constantly. The law differs on a state and national level, and the result is actually freaking chaotic.
You want to do that to abortion across the country? Who thinks that would be a good thing?
Rights to medical procedures are as basic as rights get -- and you just can not divide that by paltry state borders. It's an obscene notion.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you."
No liberals in this thread have hinted at advocating an isolationist policy as far as I can remember.
|
On October 23 2012 05:43 Sermokala wrote:
However I don't think Obama is going to go down without a fight. Even a tie at this point is a win for Obama because of how stacked the electoral math is in his favor right now. all Obama needs right now is to win Ohio Florida Virginia or nor car while romney has to win them all.
That's not exactly right.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2012/10/22/swing-state-polling-snapshot-2/
There's a few ways that the dice can fall, but Ohio is looking to be the dealbreaker. Florida is more or less locked in for Romney.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
