TradeTheBeal! Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 15 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Can you blame us? It jas been repeatedly in this forum that "states rights" is a racist buzzword. I was just asking a question and clarifying it before racism was brought up. Have you ever heard of anyone who was "against states rights"? What does that even mean? Who are those people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Too funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 23 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Well usually when it gets brought up, its immediately called racist. So i assume that meant a lack of support. I could be wrong. 2 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said: Have you ever heard of anyone who was "against states rights"? What does even mean? Who are those people? Asked and answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 16 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said: Have you ever heard of anyone who was "against states rights"? What does that even mean? Who are those people? You got to think back to when states where blatantly oppressing their own. I can see how states rights can be a dog whistle when you look at history. People who lived though segregation probably ain't trying to here about states rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 4 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said: You got to think back to when states where blatantly oppressing their own. I can see how states rights can be a dog whistle when you look at history. People who lived though segregation probably ain't trying to here about states rights. Im well aware of that...as is any American adult with a high-school level education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 States' rights historically have been used by people that want to see states have the right to continue to practice segregation and not have to do Supreme Court mandated activities to ensure segregated schools, protections for African American voting rights, etc. In that context, I suspect a lot of people are against states rights. (Just to make a point, a lot of people that claim to be for states rights are against states rights in plenty of other cases. One of the current Republican answers for health care reform, which was mentioned by Trump in both the primary debates and in the Presidential debates is a proposal to remove the ability of states to regulate the sale of health insurance in that state. That would be eliminating a right that currently belongs to the states. So in that context, Trump has at least stated a position that is against states' rights.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 53 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Can you blame us? It jas been repeatedly in this forum that "states rights" is a racist buzzword. I was just asking a question and clarifying it before racism was brought up. I was just making a joke (That only works because it's true) On 5/3/2017 at 5:59 PM, TryTheBeal! said: I'd like to expand the definition of racism to include "knowingly supporting racist ideologies and practices without acknowledging them as such". States rights, Trump Wall, War on Drugs, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 10 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said: Im well aware of that...as is any American adult with a high-school level education. Shouldn't ask such simple questions. If it was sarcasm put some sort of identifying marker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 1 minute ago, Cooked Crack said: Shouldn't ask such simple questions. If it was sarcasm put some sort of identifying marker. I always double-check my sarcasm meter before logging on...I have a husband. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 And on a tangent http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2017/06/03/kim-weaver-withdraws-her-candidacy-iowas-4th-district-race-congress/368389001/ The Dem challenger to Steve King in Iowa has been threatened out of the race. But yeah, no problems here................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 48 minutes ago, LD0506 said: And on a tangent http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2017/06/03/kim-weaver-withdraws-her-candidacy-iowas-4th-district-race-congress/368389001/ The Dem challenger to Steve King in Iowa has been threatened out of the race. But yeah, no problems here................. err... "Weaver, of Sheldon, added that her decision was driven in large part by negative responses she's received since the Register's publication of a story describing her efforts to build a career as an internet psychic." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Yup, I saw that, and yes, she may be a certifiable dingbat but whether or not she wins any election anywhere shouldn't be decided by how many death threats she received. And quite honestly, compared to King, she comes off as a goddam Rhodes scholar, he has said **** so crazy he made my grandma cry, and she died in '74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 1 hour ago, LD0506 said: And on a tangent http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2017/06/03/kim-weaver-withdraws-her-candidacy-iowas-4th-district-race-congress/368389001/ The Dem challenger to Steve King in Iowa has been threatened out of the race. But yeah, no problems here................. Got to have more fortitude, and national attention to this abomination. Sounds like repression. Really, let the electorate decide, not the mob. And I don't mean the criminal mob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsMayne Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 12 hours ago, PeterMP said: States' rights historically have been used by people that want to see states have the right to continue to practice segregation and not have to do Supreme Court mandated activities to ensure segregated schools, protections for African American voting rights, etc. In that context, I suspect a lot of people are against states rights. (Just to make a point, a lot of people that claim to be for states rights are against states rights in plenty of other cases. One of the current Republican answers for health care reform, which was mentioned by Trump in both the primary debates and in the Presidential debates is a proposal to remove the ability of states to regulate the sale of health insurance in that state. That would be eliminating a right that currently belongs to the states. So in that context, Trump has at least stated a position that is against states' rights.) I wish the republicans would stick to the states rights argument. Most of every thing should be left up to the states... can't pick and choose if you want your ideals to have any weight. Central government should only get involved when they absolutely have to: military, national disasters, protecting literal constitutional rights (not imagined ones), etc. Everything esle should be up to the state. The courts can decide if what a state is doing is constitutional or not, they already do. We don't need a centralized social code, educational system, etc. Were the laws of scope are concerned, such as social security and healthcare, it does make since for a centralized system... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 18 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said: I wish the republicans would stick to the states rights argument. Most of every thing should be left up to the states... can't pick and choose if you want your ideals to have any weight. Central government should only get involved when they absolutely have to: military, national disasters, protecting literal constitutional rights (not imagined ones), etc. Everything esle should be up to the state. The courts can decide if what a state is doing is constitutional or not, they already do. We don't need a centralized social code, educational system, etc. Were the laws of scope are concerned, such as social security and healthcare, it does make since for a centralized system... It gets pretty messy for businesses when each state has different regulations. And yes, we need regulations. I honestly believe a lot of of the stuff we have wrapped up in our states is arcane, starting with their boundaries. I'm sure I will be pilloried by some for this, and i do believe in some level of local rule, but the advent of the combustion engine, highways, airplanes, and the telecommunications make national policies more relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 19 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said: I wish the republicans would stick to the states rights argument. Most of every thing should be left up to the states... can't pick and choose if you want your ideals to have any weight. Central government should only get involved when they absolutely have to: military, national disasters, protecting literal constitutional rights (not imagined ones), etc. Everything esle should be up to the state. The courts can decide if what a state is doing is constitutional or not, they already do. We don't need a centralized social code, educational system, etc. Were the laws of scope are concerned, such as social security and healthcare, it does make since for a centralized system... OK. You're almost as conflicted as chip. Pick a side. You want healthcare for all or not? Wanna rail for days on end about elevated deductibles? **** COSTS MORE MONEY BECAUSE DOCTORS WANT MORE. Get folks who really give a crap about saving humanity and you'll find people who work for less. In almost every industry. Trust me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 London trip to show solidarity = Wants to play golf at his Scots golf course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 How does someone as childish as Scavino still have a job as social media director? This guy went after Boehner too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 That's the second of his hotels that has been involved/linked to money laundering. Thought that was a bigger deal than it seems to be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 RICO investigation and charges should be forthcoming to the Trump criminal enterprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.