State's Rights

Darla said:
I hope you are not pretending that blacks and women vote for conservatives/republicans/ libertarians the way white males do? Blacks forget about it, that's a joke. And there is a very famous "gender gap" in politics, you may have heard of it?
Click to expand...

Let me guess.... you are AGAIN going to try and label groups on the whole, despite the FACT that Christie just showed you demographics that state you are wrong. You even thanked her for the post.

The whole point of my post was to highlight something that I believe (it's okay with you that I have beliefs you haven't personally approved isn't it?). Which is; women and other minorities are far more friendly to a strong federal government because they have historically had a lot of experience in having their rights violated and denied locally, and needed the federal government to pass federal laws and to then enforce those laws.
Click to expand...

That is quite different than what you stated in the OP. Where Libertarians were ok with lynchings and that their views on states rights allowed lynchings to take place. I would agree that women and minorities are far more subservient to their federal government masters. oops... did I say subservient, I meant 'friendly'.

I mean, this is not even radical stuff. You have read history right?
Click to expand...

I have... the problem is trying to keep up with all of your rewrites on this thread.
 
christiefan915 said:
Sanford police officials, who have not charged Zimmerman after accepting his claim that his actions were in self-defense, released eight 911 calls last Friday after mounting pressure.
Click to expand...

great... you have shown that the city, after 24 days, has not charged someone yet. You and I both agree that they should have. Now... do you know the difference between city and State? do you understand why it is silly to proclaim that the state has failed? While I feel they have more than enough to at least toss Zimmerman in jail for the duration of the investigation, there is still due process in this country.

Or are you suggesting that the State jump into every murder investigation within a month? How has the State failed?
 
Rana said:
It has been a whole month, it is why people, like myself are so outraged.
Click to expand...

24 days to be precise. I know in your fantasy world murders are solved in one hour tv episodes... but that doesn't always happen in the real world.

Again, I think he should be in jail based on what is known... but the proclamations that the state failed because no charges have been brought less than a month later is absurd.
 
Superfreak said:
great... you have shown that the city, after 24 days, has not charged someone yet. You and I both agree that they should have. Now... do you know the difference between city and State? do you understand why it is silly to proclaim that the state has failed? While I feel they have more than enough to at least toss Zimmerman in jail for the duration of the investigation, there is still due process in this country.

Or are you suggesting that the State jump into every murder investigation within a month? How has the State failed?
Click to expand...

They didn't charge him because they agreed it was self-defense. The state had nothing to say until the feds came in.

Again, this is textbook.
 
Superfreak said:
Let me guess.... you are AGAIN going to try and label groups on the whole, despite the FACT that Christie just showed you demographics that state you are wrong. You even thanked her for the post.



That is quite different than what you stated in the OP. Where Libertarians were ok with lynchings and that their views on states rights allowed lynchings to take place. I would agree that women and minorities are far more subservient to their federal government masters. oops... did I say subservient, I meant 'friendly'.



I have... the problem is trying to keep up with all of your rewrites on this thread.
Click to expand...

I said no such thing in the OP, you read it that way, which is a personal problem you have. You are just very sensitive. I mean, it sounded like you were weeping during parts of this thread.
 
Darla said:
It's weird how it's mostly white males who cry about state's rights, and who also tend to join the Libertarian party, the party that loves sausage - but not browned. Why they can't attract women is no mystery - cause hey, bitches be crazy! But their inability to attract black men has long been the rubik's cube of politics. No one can figure it out!

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

DOJ, FBI Opens Investigation Of Trayvon Martin Death

Federal authorities have opened a formal investigation into the death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old black teenager shot by a neighborhood watch captain in Sanford, Florida. DOJ's full statement.
Click to expand...

:rofl: Good one, Darla!!
 
Darla said:
They didn't charge him because they agreed it was self-defense. The state had nothing to say until the feds came in.

Again, this is textbook.
Click to expand...

Really, the locals concluded their investigation? Do link us up.

Again, for the state... it has been 24 days. What is your timeline for a state to intervene? how long before they take over every murder investigation that seems clear cut? A day? A week? What is your timeline that they need to live up to?
 
Darla said:
I said no such thing in the OP, you read it that way, which is a personal problem you have. You are just very sensitive. I mean, it sounded like you were weeping during parts of this thread.
Click to expand...

It's weird how it's mostly white males who cry about state's rights, and who also tend to join the Libertarian party, the party that loves sausage - but not browned. Why they can't attract women is no mystery - cause hey, bitches be crazy! But their inability to attract black men has long been the rubik's cube of politics. No one can figure it out!

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

How could I have ever thought that is what you meant. I mean back to back sentences of 'they can't attract black men to their party' (which is false) and 'a black male can still be lynched and not face state murder charges'.

How could anyone have ever concluded that you were suggesting Libertarians were ok with lynchings because they support state rights??? totally my fault... you never (obviously) came close to stating any such thing.
Click to expand...
 
Superfreak said:
Really, the locals concluded their investigation? Do link us up.

Again, for the state... it has been 24 days. What is your timeline for a state to intervene? how long before they take over every murder investigation that seems clear cut? A day? A week? What is your timeline that they need to live up to?
Click to expand...

They declined to prosecute SF, and no one in that state said shit. They are all second amendment cons.

There was a public outcry, and after "mounting pressure", the feds opened an investigation. After the feds came in, the state all of a sudden, in FIVE FUCKING MINUTES, said, oh yeah we are going to investigate this too!

So I guess my timeline is that as soon as the feds come in the state is suddenly able to act.

And that is what I call a textbook case of state's rights bullshit, and thankfully this is 2012 when the state actually steps to it when the feds say you bitches better clean up your act, which is precisely what happened here. Drop the stupid act. You're not stupid.
 
Superfreak said:
It's weird how it's mostly white males who cry about state's rights, and who also tend to join the Libertarian party, the party that loves sausage - but not browned. Why they can't attract women is no mystery - cause hey, bitches be crazy! But their inability to attract black men has long been the rubik's cube of politics. No one can figure it out!

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

How could I have ever thought that is what you meant. I mean back to back sentences of 'they can't attract black men to their party' (which is false) and 'a black male can still be lynched and not face state murder charges'.

How could anyone have ever concluded that you were suggesting Libertarians were ok with lynchings because they support state rights??? totally my fault... you never (obviously) came close to stating any such thing.
Click to expand...

No I did not mean that Libertarians in general were okay with a black man being shot and no charges being brought (though some are okay with it) I mean that their ideology leads to this. I've said this a hundred times. That you keep stamping your feet because I wont' say what you want me to say is not my problem.

But I imagine it's hard on your feet after a while.
Click to expand...
 
Darla said:
No, I usually do some lines in the morning because that can't be smelled on your breath. I don't hit the bottle till happy hour, you know, lunch time.

What does it have to do with state's rights? Okay, well, historically blacks have not supported state's rights but rather have voted for a strong federal government.

Do you have any idea why that may be, and how this case may reinforce that?
Click to expand...

It's nice to see some folks here know proper etiquette. If only the rest of the world conducted itself so. :)
 
Darla said:
Superfreak said:
No I did not mean that Libertarians in general were okay with a black man being shot and no charges being brought (though some are okay with it) I mean that their ideology leads to this. I've said this a hundred times. That you keep stamping your feet because I wont' say what you want me to say is not my problem.

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

No, my problem lies in your continued bullshit comments that their ideology leads to that. It doesn't. What we see is that you once again demonstrate you have no fucking clue what Libertarians believe. The INDIVIDUAL rights are first and foremost. So tell us Darla.. If Individual rights are FIRST... how does supporting state rights lead us to a violation of individual rights?

You stomping your feet and proclaiming the same stupid shit over and over again doesn't change the fact that it is stupid shit you are spewing.
Click to expand...
 
Superfreak said:
24 days to be precise. I know in your fantasy world murders are solved in one hour tv episodes... but that doesn't always happen in the real world.

Again, I think he should be in jail based on what is known... but the proclamations that the state failed because no charges have been brought less than a month later is absurd.
Click to expand...

They weren't investigating until the public outcry, so all me whatever names you choose, it still doesn't change the facts.
 
Darla said:
They declined to prosecute SF, and no one in that state said shit. They are all second amendment cons.

There was a public outcry, and after "mounting pressure", the feds opened an investigation. After the feds came in, the state all of a sudden, in FIVE FUCKING MINUTES, said, oh yeah we are going to investigate this too!

So I guess my timeline is that as soon as the feds come in the state is suddenly able to act.

And that is what I call a textbook case of state's rights bullshit, and thankfully this is 2012 when the state actually steps to it when the feds say you bitches better clean up your act, which is precisely what happened here. Drop the stupid act. You're not stupid.
Click to expand...

Please link us up to where they declined to prosecute. Because I haven't seen that link... show us too when it is the state was notified of the problems residents had with the city officials handling of the matter.
 
Ok. So many stupid statements here...

Firstly, Darla, you are stating that the Libertarian idea of a strong state government is flawed correct? Therefore, you would support the INVERSE of that (I.E. a state government that is either weak and severly limited or non-existant). Your claims that states rights has been used to champion the supression of rights of people can be true, though it is erronious on it's face. You might bring up Jim Crow, but please try to rememeber that those laws were not a application of states rights. States cannot deny individual rights any more than the federal government can. Also, the federal government can just as easily serve as an arm to supress rights, and in doing so it causes far greater harm than at the state level, as to escape such tyranny, one would have to leave the country.

Now it's not typically practical to up and leave a state if the laws in place are restrictive or tyrannical in nature. I'm not suggesting that it is. I'm suggesting that THAT said option of recourse exists, whereas it does not at a federal level.

On to the idea of Libertarianism itself. I REALLY shouldn't have to state this, but with all the weapons grade Bolognium being used here, apparently I do. Libertarianism is about solving a problem at the lowest level required. You may also know this system as FEDERALISM. If a state government can solve a problem, why then should the federal government get involved? It has been 'handled' at the local level, though the results were not satisfactory. There is no need to jump straight to the DOJ (though this could be a ploy by Holder to try and appear to not be a virulent criminal who should currently be in a maximum security prision for multiple international law violations). The company CEO doesn't get involved in the daily minutia of whatever company they work for, because they have subordinates to handle that. Same for the government. Or would you prefer the FBI/DOJ to grow exponentially in size so as to cover ALL these sorts of crimes? It would be the sign of a strong federal government, and coversely a weak state government.

Lastly, on the issue of Castle Doctrine, the primary focus of said laws is to treat defensive shootings just like ANY OTHER CRIME. What that means, is that the state must PROVE that those who claim self defense were not in fact acting in self defense. Prior to these laws, the reverse was univerally true, I.E. those who wished to claim self defense would be required to prove that they feel threatened. This flies in the face of every other type of criminal prosecution there is, as in every other case, the accused has a right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. The secondary focus of Castle Doctrine laws is to remove the duty of retreat from self defense. That means that I do not have to attempt to flee an area if I feel in danger for my life, as I do have a freedom of movement and a freedom to defend myself, why should I comprimise either, to placate a criminal?

These laws DO NOT (and I cannot stress this enough) mean that one can provoke a situation (as Zimmerman did) and then resort to deadly force. That's 2nd degree murder, or at the very least, voluntary manslaughter. An improper application of a law does not render the law itself invalid.
 
Superfreak said:
No, my problem lies in your continued bullshit comments that their ideology leads to that. It doesn't. What we see is that you once again demonstrate you have no fucking clue what Libertarians believe. The INDIVIDUAL rights are first and foremost. So tell us Darla.. If Individual rights are FIRST... how does supporting state rights lead us to a violation of individual rights?

You stomping your feet and proclaiming the same stupid shit over and over again doesn't change the fact that it is stupid shit you are spewing.
Click to expand...

Because the rights of individuals will always be violated. Women and other minorities know this. For instance, before the civil rights movement, blacks could technically vote, but we all knew they could not vote in southern states. Their rights were violated. It took the federal government to intervene. Their intervention was resisted, often violently, under the "state's rights" doctrine.

Young Trayvon Martin's rights were violated. He was murdered for walking while black. We all know this. His killer was not charged because of racism. We all know this too.

You do not have to personally be racist to affect a racist outcome. It is really that simple. We do not live in a utopia and we never will. Individual rights are always going to be violated. What you do about that, is always going to be the question. We see right here on this thread STY arguing the feds have no right to intervene. Now, he may personally not be a racist. I don't know him, so I don't know. It doesn't matter. The outcome of his libertarian belief, would be racist.
 
Darla said:
Because the rights of individuals will always be violated. Women and other minorities know this. For instance, before the civil rights movement, blacks could technically vote, but we all knew they could not vote in southern states. Their rights were violated. It took the federal government to intervene. Their intervention was resisted, often violently, under the "state's rights" doctrine.

Young Trayvon Martin's rights were violated. He was murdered for walking while black. We all know this. His killer was not charged because of racism. We all know this too.

You do not have to personally be racist to affect a racist outcome. It is really that simple. We do not live in a utopia and we never will. Individual rights are always going to be violated. What you do about that, is always going to be the question. We see right here on this thread STY arguing the feds have no right to intervene. Now, he may personally not be a racist. I don't know him, so I don't know. It doesn't matter. The outcome of his libertarian belief, would be racist.
Click to expand...

And Again... you are clearly fucking ignorant with what the Libertarian position is. The Individuals rights are FIRST AND FOREMOST what they protect. If the locals fuck up an individuals rights, the State should step in, if the State in turn fucks up the individuals rights then the Feds should step in. THAT is the Libertarian view.

what is so fucking hard about the above that confuses you ? The INDIVIDUAL comes FIRST. Their rights are to be protected. If they are not, then you keep going as high as you need to in the government to protect them. Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top