Is this the year of the Libertarian Party?

[The Derp]

Yes, and my whole discussion with you has been about REMOVING that control over me as much as possible.

But if you live in a big state, then you have that authority miles and miles away. So I don't see the difference between having that authority in DC or in Sacramento. The legislators in Sacramento are just as accountable to voters as the legislators in DC. Both are elected representatives, both can be voted out.

I don't know why you fixate on the distance thing...the internet has made all politics national. Localization now is analogous with corruption. That's why state governments are more notoriously corrupt than the federal one. Between 1974-2008, 24,000 state lawmakers were convicted on corruption charges, which is a higher % than the same number of federal officials convicted on corruption charges. That's from the FBI. Now you want to turn more authority over to those corrupt state governments, why?

 

[NightFox]

It is a well known fact on this forum, far and wide, that I fucking hate racists and bigots. Hate them, bigly.

To accuse me of propounding states rights for the purposes of discrimination is a goddam motherfucking syphilitic pissant little worm tactic.

And if I call one of these fucking pissants a fucking name and hurt his fucking thin-skinned feelings, then GOOD!

Sheesh.. calm down and take another Prozac, it's clear that you're not "propounding states rights for the purposes of discrimination",...

... anyone that bothers to look can clearly see that you're propounding states rights because you want a shot at bringing back slavery.

 

[g5000]

Nope. Bullshit straw man fallacy.

Fine. Pick an issue, any issue, and I'll tell you how the states' rights argument inevitably falls to discrimination.

I have given you SEVERAL already. Unclamp your hands from your eyes, willfully blind monkey.

Legalizing pot, for example.

I can't wait for you tell us how this discriminates against blacks.

The pot's a great example...

People smoke pot in California, where it's legal.

People smoke pot in Georgia, where it's illegal.

What is the common denominator? People smoking pot.

And fucking shit, if you don't know that drug laws are discriminatory by now, then you have no business being on the internet.

How does legalizing pot discriminate against blacks?

STILL waiting!

 

[The Derp]

Gee, do you think more local legislators were corrupted over a 32 year period because THERE ARE TENS OF THOUSANDS MORE OF THEM?

The % is higher than it is for federal legislators convicted of corruption charges.

And BTW - those convictions were federal corruption charges, meaning the local and state authorities didn't bother investigating or didn't have the ability to investigate because of no anti-corruption laws.

I live in GA which is one of the most corrupt state houses in the country.

 

[g5000]

What is the common denominator? People smoking pot.

SO WHAT!?!?

There is no interstate connection. There is no dependency of one upon the other.

Holy shit, you are incredibly dense. Your idiocy leads to:

A) People in Michigan wipe their asses.

B) People in Maine wipe their asses.

C) Therefore, the federal government can regulate how you wipe your ass.

Basically, you are a fascist who believes every human activity is to be controlled by a central authority.

You are the person The Road To Serfdom was written about.

 

[g5000]

Gee, do you think more local legislators were corrupted over a 32 year period because THERE ARE TENS OF THOUSANDS MORE OF THEM?

The % is higher than it is for federal legislators convicted of corruption charges.

And BTW - those convictions were federal corruption charges, meaning the local and state authorities didn't bother investigating (or didn't want to because they're in on the corruption too).

I live in GA which is one of the most corrupt state houses in the country.

Where is the cite? You did not provide a link for the numbers you claimed.

 

[g5000]

You can't do it, Derp. You can't explain how legalizing pot in Minnesota discriminates against blacks.

That's what happens when you puke up a straw man fallacy.

 

[The Derp]

I am STILL waiting to hear how legalizing pot on the state level discriminates against blacks.

I never said it did. Remember, pot's in prohibition now, not the other way around.

 

[The Derp]

Between 1976 and 2008, 24,000 state lawmakers were convicted of corruption.

Where is the cite for this?

Here ya go.

Here's the link to the actual study.

 

[g5000]

And BTW - those convictions were federal corruption charges, meaning the local and state authorities didn't bother investigating or didn't have the ability to investigate because of no anti-corruption laws.

Local and state authorities didn't bother investigating. A claim not substantiated.

But perhaps federal authorities don't bother investigating federal politicians for corruption.

 

[The Derp]

You mean, making other people pay for your goods and services?

You don't know what health insurance is. That's because you have no experience.

 

[The Derp]

Legalizing pot on the state level.

Legalizing pot by....removing state restrictions.

 

[g5000]

I am STILL waiting to hear how legalizing pot on the state level discriminates against blacks.

I never said it did. Remember, pot's in prohibition now, not the other way around.

You said quite plainly, "Pick an issue, any issue, and I'll tell you how the states' rights argument inevitably falls to discrimination."

Show me how legalizing pot in Minnesota "falls to discrimination".

 

[The Derp]

When they are in DC, they are not driving in Kansas.

But they're still driving cars, right?

Do you think federal safety belt laws are a violation of your rights? How'd that court case work out?

 

[The Derp]

Isn’t pot still illegal on a federal level? I guess Derp would be in favor of the Feds making mass arrests in Colorado and California of people using and selling pot!

No, I'm in favor of changing federal policy and why I vote for politicians who support doing so.

 

[The Derp]

Oh, wait. If Kansas decided it was okay to drive 100 mph in Kansas, this would be discrimination!

I said pick an issue, not come up with hyperboles that are totally unrealistic.

That seems to be the only way you hysterical frauds can debate; to use hyperbole and melodrama.

 

[g5000]

Yes, and my whole discussion with you has been about REMOVING that control over me as much as possible.

But if you live in a big state, then you have that authority miles and miles away. So I don't see the difference between having that authority in DC or in Sacramento. The legislators in Sacramento are just as accountable to voters as the legislators in DC. Both are elected representatives, both can be voted out.

Yes, and the legislators in Sacramento know what is better for Californians than DC does.

DC tries to force a one-size-fits-all glove on every state.

I can't believe you are so far gone that this principle completely evades you.

Astonishing.

 

[g5000]

And fucking shit, if you don't know that drug laws are discriminatory by now, then you have no business being on the internet.

You mean FEDERAL laws are discriminatory.

I'm sure that was a deliberate omission on your part.

You just hoisted yourself by your own petard.

 

[g5000]

Oh, wait. If Kansas decided it was okay to drive 100 mph in Kansas, this would be discrimination!

I said pick an issue, not come up with hyperboles that are totally unrealistic.

That seems to be the only way you hysterical frauds can debate; to use hyperbole and melodrama.

It's an example. Kansas should be able to determine their own speed limits.

Stop dancing around and answer the question. Tell us how Kansas determining its own speed limits "falls to discrimination".

You can't do it. All you can do is run and dance and toss out non sequiturs.

You know why?

Because you used a straw man fallacy. One of the fucking worst. You played the race card.

 

[The Derp]

That's how liberal incrementalism works. A little power grab here, a little power grab there. Before you know it, you can't fart without filling out a form.

And this is informed by....nothing. Like I said so many times before, you're juvenile and hyperbolic. And BTW - you want to take the federal authority and hand that same authority to state and local authorities, which are far more corrupt and not subject to any kind of oversight. Why? Because you fundamentally oppose federal corruption laws.

Unless those laws are not the "kind" you're talking about. hehe - there's that word again "kind" - it signifies a subjective and arbitrary judgement you haveunilaterally made, where you define the standards and parameters a priori:

I'm sorry you suffer from short term memory deficits and cannot recall that I very specifically mentioned the power of "federal pre-emption". All caught up now?

Right, the arbitrary "federal preemption" parameters which you haven't defined because you can't.