Bachmann proves she has no sense; alienates Fox News host

[Alan]

Another issue that we would like see legalized. AT A FEDERAL LEVEL.

You're the one saying inalienable rights can be unequally distributed. Mentioning other examples is an argument against your point, not for it.

[Grausamkeit]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

That isn't what I'm saying.

It is a long process,I wish it could happen overnight for you and yours.

But from the looks of things it isn't going to.

and it won't unless you continue the fight at the local (State) level,which I hope you do,because believe it or not you have my support.

No. The best and fastest way to do things would be to get the rights of the Gay Community covered by the constitution. I'm sure you can look around at state laws and see how well your method is NOT working for our LGBTQI people in the US.

Let me ask you this: If people need protection from the rain would it be better to give each person a small umbrella or get a big fucking pavilion that protects everyone equally? My vote would go for the pavilion. The constitution is like a pavilion, but some people setting high and dry underneath it are denying others the right to shelter and giving them flimsy paper substitutes and telling them it's equal to the protection that they are getting. I'm sorry if that's a horrible analogy, everyone, I'm tired and about to go to bed. It's just what sprang to mind.

Even though you would most likely regulate my rights out of exsistance.

What? Where are you getting that idea from? How in the hell would having gay marriage recognized under the law take any of your rights away? You better be very elaborate about your answers to those because I have half a mind to write you off after reading that. If you mean that your freedom to live in a world where some people have more rights than others and people are okay with that, no you don't have that right. No one has the 'right' to live in an unequal, unjust world.

And as weird as it may sound I'm not your enemy.

Really? You statement above seems to strongly suggest otherwise. It's not much removed from the Neo-nazis who think they are clever by calling themselves 'nationalists'. You are disappointing me, Deadman.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Why is it right for the Federal Govenment to ignore the rights of Marijuana users?

Even if Marijuana users are sick and mary jane has been proven to be the least harmful cure?

Your point? That didn't even make sense. It didn't answer my question.

Let me simplify the question:

WHY is it wrong for the federal government to exercise a justice without the consent of states that would otherwise support an injustice?

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Alan

Another issue that we would like see legalized. AT A FEDERAL LEVEL.

You're the one saying inalienable rights can be unequally distributed. Mentioning other examples is an argument against your point, not for it.

Yes but where is it Legalized first more often than not?

THE STATE LEVEL

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

Your point? That didn't even make sense. It didn't answer my question.

Let me simplify the question:

WHY is it wrong for the federal government to exercise a justice without the consent of states that would otherwise support an injustice?

No answer my questions I've answered yours.

It's your turn.

[AshleyO]

Your questions don't make sense. I was only interested in the debate over gay rights in context of your state's rights philosophy and I shown where the holes are in your ideals and proven that there are times when the demands of the states need to be ignored for the greater good.

I would say something about legalizing weed, but it's not exactly on the federal government's priority list at the moment. Plus the lobby groups interested in keeping weed banned is another thing to go after. Still not sure what your point is about the federal ban on weed.

[Vince]

It really baffles me that this is even an issue.

Even though you would most likely regulate my rights out of exsistance.

im trying to follow this "debate"...what i took from that is that the feds may take his guns away? Maybe im reading it wrong.

Btw, what does the QI stand for, Graus?

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

Your questions don't make sense. I was only interested in the debate over gay rights in context of your state's rights philosophy and I shown where the holes are in your ideals and proven that there are times when the demands of the states need to be ignored for the greater good.

I would say something about legalizing weed, but it's not exactly on the federal government's priority list at the moment. Plus the lobby groups interested in keeping weed banned is another thing to go after. Still not sure what your point is about the federal ban on weed.

Funny how you like to question others but shy away when questions are asked of you.

That says more about your character and ideals than it does mine.

[Grausamkeit]

Originally Posted by Vince

It really baffles me that this is even an issue.


im trying to follow this "debate"...what i took from that is that the feds may take his guns away? Maybe im reading it wrong.

Btw, what does the QI stand for, Graus?

Gay marriage will take guns away? That makes even less sense. Either way, nobody is threatening him or his guns. This is about equal rights for gay people. Edit: I have heard the argument from a few anti-gay marriage people that having gay marriage recognized will somehow affect their own rights. I don't see how, but it's what some believe.

Here is a glossary of the terms. I did not know that they added the 'A'.

[AshleyO]

Yes, Vince. His right to own a gun is more important or just as important as basic human equality. Get that? His TOY is JUST AS IMPORTANT as a human being's right to live under equal protection of the law.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Yes but where is it Legalized first more often than not?

THE STATE LEVEL

That's because that's how it's conducted in America, idiot. You're begging the question. You literally are championing states rights because the very same emphasis on states rights absolutely halts federal decisions. Tell me you realize that. It's like saying only the Republicans can have a solution to the current crisis just because Republicans will say no to anything Democrats do.

Look at the speed that countries like France, Brazil, Mexico, and Germany pass popular referendums, because those countries work as a strong federal entity.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

Yes, Vince. His right to own a gun is more important or just as important as basic human equality. Get that? His TOY is JUST AS IMPORTANT as a human being's right to live under equal protection of the law.

No you're only looking at it from one side and seeing it as you want in an attempt to drag me through the political mud.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Funny how you like to question others but shy away when questions are asked of you.

That says more about your character and ideals than it does mine.

Exactly what are you saying about the Federal government's policy on weed?

There's a million and one special interests groups trying to use the federal government to level their standards against everyone else.

Technically, I don't have a problem with it, even though there's plenty of lobby groups jockying to ban abortion on a federal level, that people try to ban weed on a federal level, and trying to ban stem cell research on a federal level.

Thing is, these things can happen on all levels of government. Fact is, the federal level is just more conclusive and impermeable.

What you fail to realize is that I have absolutely NO PROBLEM at all with using the federal government to make states do the right thing.

And when the federal government moves to do something obviously wrong, then yes, it should be contested.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Alan

That's because that's how it's conducted in America, idiot. You're begging the question. You literally are championing states rights because the very same emphasis on states rights absolutely halts federal decisions. Tell me you realize that. It's like saying only the Republicans can have a solution to the current crisis just because Republicans will say no to anything Democrats do.

Look at the speed that countries like France, Brazil, Mexico, and Germany pass popular referendums, because those countries work as a strong federal entity.

Nope,the reason I support Ron Paul is because he isn't an establishment republican or democrat.

The establishment system fears the guy for a reason.

And the bought and paid for MSM tries to sweep the guy under the rug at every turn for the same reason.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by Grausamkeit

Gay marriage will take guns away? That makes even less sense. Either way, nobody is threatening him or his guns. This is about equal rights for gay people. Edit: I have heard the argument from a few anti-gay marriage people that having gay marriage recognized will somehow affect their own rights. I don't see how, but it's what some believe.

Here is a glossary of the terms. I did not know that they added the 'A'.

Haha, fuck me i hope that's not what was actually implied. i read it that way because of the logic i've seen in this thread thus far. It's bounced from gay rights, to gun rights, to slave rights, and now marijuana rights. All in the name of state's rights.

i'm still waiting for that page to load, yay Verizon.

Yeah, i've heard that argument, Graus and it's so stupid i often wonder if they're actually serious.

[Alan]

Ron Paul has shit to do with this thread. Don't try to change the subject.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Vince

Haha, fuck me i hope that's not what was actually implied. i read it that way because of the logic i've seen in this thread thus far. It's bounced from gay rights, to gun rights, to slave rights, and now marijuana rights. All in the name of state's rights.

i'm still waiting for that page to load, yay Verizon.

Yeah, i've heard that argument, Graus and it's so stupid i often wonder if they're actually serious.

It jumped all over the place in the debate because Deadman is trying to be slippery by dragging other issues into the debate in order to strengthen his state right philosophy. Trying to muddy the waters.

But he knew he couldn't reasonably say that it's okay to leave something as important as gay rights up to the states on its own merits, so he brought in less important things such as weed and gun ownership.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

Exactly what are you saying about the Federal government's policy on weed?

There's a million and one special interests groups trying to use the federal government to level their standards against everyone else.

Technically, I don't have a problem with it, even though there's plenty of lobby groups jockying to ban abortion on a federal level, that people try to ban weed on a federal level, and trying to ban stem cell research on a federal level.

Thing is, these things can happen on all levels of government. Fact is, the federal level is just more conclusive and impermeable.

What you fail to realize is that I have absolutely NO PROBLEM at all with using the federal government to make states do the right thing.

And when the federal government moves to do something obviously wrong, then yes, it should be contested.

That's what I've been saying about both.

There are failings in both areas right?

Both could use a swift kick in the pants by the people right?

Then how about we start working together and fix both instead of get involved in partisan bickering?

Ron Paul is personally against gay marriage but also follows the constitution and as such would vote in favor of gay rights faster than anyone else on capitol hill,just on principal alone,because it's the right thing,same goes for weed.

[Alan]

Not true, he'd leave it to the states instead of the people and we go back to not having gay marriage until at least 20 years.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Alan

Not true, he'd leave it to the states instead of the people and we go back to not having gay marriage until at least 20 years.

Or in a lot less time than you think Al.

[Alan]

Stop calling me Al, that's not my name. And it will be a lot less time because the center and center-left will continue making it a federal issue.
Not because Texas will go progressive in the next couple of decades.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

That's what I've been saying about both.

There are failings in both areas right?

Then why are you more concerned with state's rights instead of being concerned about real human rights issues? What's the state got to do with any of that shit when social justice is on the line?

Both could use a swift kick in the pants by the people right?

SOME states do need to be retooled because they DO trample on the rights of their constituents because the state level is NOT a real solution to socio-economic problems. It's just a means of shifting the focus of those problems on a larger or smaller scale.

Then how about we start working together and fix both instead of get involved in partisan bickering?

Probably because you believe in the unreal virtues of a free market and I for one can't trust capitalism to be a good representation of the people's interests. But, you really haven't explained anything about your soci0-economic views. You've only ever talked about state rights and that's such a vacuous world view that it's almost not even a legitimate political view.

Ron Paul is personally against gay marriage but also follows the constitution and as such would vote in favor of gay rights faster than anyone else on capitol hill,just on principal alone,because it's the right thing,same goes for weed.

Ron Paul will support state rights when it comes to things that threaten his moral code. The man is totally okay with states banning atheists from serving in any kind of office. That right there is reason enough for me to consider him an outright political enemy.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Alan

Stop calling me Al, that's not my name. And it will be a lot less time because the center and center-left will continue making it a federal issue.
Not because Texas will go progressive in the next couple of decades.

LoL! Texas will NOT be progressive in a couple of decades. It may be someday, but surely not in our lifetime.

[Alan]

That what I said. Deadman's the one saying that Texas will legalize gay marriage by its own accord in less than 20 years.

[AshleyO]

Hell no. States like Texas, Arizona, Cali, and the southern states? Pffft.

Deadman, those are states that need a federal renaissance THRUST upon them against their will for the good of America as a whole because they WILL NOT change their minds any time within our lifetimes and these VERY important issues need to be addressed NOW. Not within a 100 years when people are good and ready to be reasonable.