Bad Cases Make Bad Laws

September 11th Terrorist Attacks. Result: Cannot have fingernail scissors in carry-on bags.

"Due to new security restrictions, thermonuclear warheads and nail clippers are no longer permitted as carry on baggage."
 
You think CA isn't a real state?

Listen sweetheart our state's been around for more than half a century before yours finally showed up.

Cecilie is likely of the opinion that any Republican that is a moderate or any left of Jim DeMint is a RINO. Republican in Name Only. I've always wondered why people who claim to be so open to the ideas of others wants to restrict their tent to the point that people only follow specific and adhere to said specific ideologies can call themselves "true" Republicans.
 
You think CA isn't a real state?

Listen sweetheart our state's been around for more than half a century before yours finally showed up.

Cecilie is likely of the opinion that any Republican that is a moderate or any left of Jim DeMint is a RINO. Republican in Name Only. I've always wondered why people who claim to be so open to the ideas of others wants to restrict their tent to the point that people only follow specific and adhere to said specific ideologies can call themselves "true" Republicans.

You mean true "Conservatives"...not true Republicans.

This is another case of projection Dog.
 
Well it's not a sure thing. Perhaps it did deter a school shooting we'll never know for sure unless someone comes forward.
I also think that when one is judging whether or not a law is bad, it's a definitively telling point when it's "impossible to tell" if it did what it was supposed to do. Any law with unmeasurable goals and unmeasurable results is, by definition, bad law.

Exactly, but even then we can't say for certain it did absolutely nothing.

- And to all the other innate statements this one mirrors -
We live here in the real world, where real effects need to be taken in account. There is no certainty that you even exist, that does not mean I am going to challenge it. There is no CERTAINTY, just the basic evidence that we have in front of us and that leads the rational to the ineffectiveness of that particular law. If you wish to debate that stance with a REAL position instead of requiring CERTAINTY then have at it but please refrain from asking the impossible and then pointing it out when it is not met.
 
I've always wondered why people who claim to be so open to the ideas of others wants to restrict their tent to the point that people only follow specific and adhere to said specific ideologies can call themselves "true" Republicans.

Miss characterization. We true republicans are not interested in forcing people to ONLY adhere to specific ideologies to be part of the republican party - just that they adhere to a small core of said ideologies. I do not see where that is a bad thing, I require all candidates that I vote for are going to represent me and agree to the ideologies that I find important.

Unfortunately, there are not many left in the Republican Party that still fit that bill :(

Schwarzenegger no longer seems to fit that bill.

To the CA law, I have to agree totally. It was sold to CA residents in a way that restricted it to VIOLENT crimes and that was a bald face lie. The concept is sound and should be implemented, what we ended up with was a perversion of justice.
 
You think CA isn't a real state?

Listen sweetheart our state's been around for more than half a century before yours finally showed up.

Cecilie is likely of the opinion that any Republican that is a moderate or any left of Jim DeMint is a RINO. Republican in Name Only. I've always wondered why people who claim to be so open to the ideas of others wants to restrict their tent to the point that people only follow specific and adhere to said specific ideologies can call themselves "true" Republicans.

Cecilie is likely of the opinion that you would need two more rungs up on the evolutionary ladder before you even qualify to attempt to suss out Cecilie's opinion without detailed assistance.

Call me when you get someone to explain the concept of "words mean things" to you.
 
Cecilie is likely of the opinion that you would need two more rungs up on the evolutionary ladder before you even qualify to attempt to suss out Cecilie's opinion without detailed assistance.

Call me when you get someone to explain the concept of "words mean things" to you.

Feel free to prove me wrong. However, your posts seemed to indicate that if someone doesn't adhere to a certain ideology, then they cannot be a Republican. However, how can one be open to new ideas if they want that? :eusa_whistle:
 
Cecilie is likely of the opinion that you would need two more rungs up on the evolutionary ladder before you even qualify to attempt to suss out Cecilie's opinion without detailed assistance.

Call me when you get someone to explain the concept of "words mean things" to you.

Feel free to prove me wrong. However, your posts seemed to indicate that if someone doesn't adhere to a certain ideology, then they cannot be a Republican. However, how can one be open to new ideas if they want that? :eusa_whistle:

If the GOP is open to any and every "new" idea (and there are few and far between) then the party stands for nothing and gives no one a reason to vote for it. While we can accept a range of ideas clearly some things are beyond what should be considered Republican. Listening to McCain on the campaign trail, his economic ideas sounded not very much different from Obama's. Listening to Palin castigate "Wall St Bankers" in her debate made me cringe. There is a reason people like McCain are dubbed RINOs.
 
Bad cases can lead to hysteria and moral panics.

It didn't result in a law (I think) but I'd like to add

Columbine: Those boys played Doom. ZOMG video games caused the shooting.

It didn't result in a ban but damnit if those morons didn't try to get one.
 
Last edited:
tsk tsk Didnt read the OP. Led to AWB in '96

I meant laws regarding video games. Sorry if that was unclear.
Arent they required to put warnings on the violent ones now?

You mean the letter ratings? Well they do that voluntarily like the movies do. Although one of the major reasons they did so was that Congress basically threatened them with 'if you don't it we will'. Although IIRC this was before Columbine and was over Mortal Kombat.
 
Cecilie is likely of the opinion that you would need two more rungs up on the evolutionary ladder before you even qualify to attempt to suss out Cecilie's opinion without detailed assistance.

Call me when you get someone to explain the concept of "words mean things" to you.

Feel free to prove me wrong. However, your posts seemed to indicate that if someone doesn't adhere to a certain ideology, then they cannot be a Republican. However, how can one be open to new ideas if they want that? :eusa_whistle:

Yes, if one does not fit the definition of "Republican", then one is not a Republican, just as if one does not fit the definition of the word "man", then one is not a man.

This is not a difficult concept.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top