|
|
Post by Baph on Apr 30, 2017 20:41:59 GMT -5
Constitutionally it's a federal government issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Apr 30, 2017 21:20:14 GMT -5
Maher earning some more street cred. Calls out Obama on his $400,000 Wall St Investment Bank speech. The dude signed a $10-million book deal, he's looking at $6 mill in lifetime stipend as a former President, and he'll get a quarter-mill any time he decides to give a commencement speech for the next several years . . . so why go into the den of the fat cats and directly contradict everything you've said for a decade?
|
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Apr 30, 2017 22:28:44 GMT -5
Constitutionally it's a federal government issue. How is that? Why shouldn't the states let in who they want in? |
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Apr 30, 2017 22:58:30 GMT -5
Constitutionally it's a federal government issue. How is that? Why shouldn't the states let in who they want in? Naturalization is specifically enumerated within the constitution as a federal power, article one, section eight. The federal government has the power to set a uniform policy for citizenship. |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Apr 30, 2017 22:59:55 GMT -5
How is that? Why shouldn't the states let in who they want in? Naturalization is specifically enumerated within the constitution as a federal power, article one, section eight. The federal government has the power to set a uniform policy for citizenship. That's citizenship, not travel. |
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Apr 30, 2017 23:36:11 GMT -5
Wasn't aware the immigration debate hinged on how Florida was handling vacationers from abroad.
My OP was about illegal immigrants, so the federal policy would be the only pertinent point. Once inside, and legalized, I'm all for states, cities, communities, and individuals enacting whatever policies they see fit, though the courts have repeatedly struck down such measures.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Apr 30, 2017 23:49:40 GMT -5
Wasn't aware the immigration debate hinged on how Florida was handling vacationers from abroad. My OP was about illegal immigrants, so the federal policy would be the only pertinent point. Once inside, and legalized, I'm all for states, cities, communities, and individuals enacting whatever policies they see fit, though the courts have repeatedly struck down such measures. So who cares if they are extended visitors then? Instead of clamping down on immigration, why not push for legislation to shift protected benefits from being universal to being limited to citizens? Be cheaper and easier. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 23:51:19 GMT -5
Constitutionally it's a federal government issue. How is that? Why shouldn't the states let in who they want in? Because interstate travel has no governing laws or restrictions. If San Francisco decides that the SFO airport is going to have an open door policy, then everyone will simply fly there and travel to their intended destination. You have to have entry mandated and governed by the federal government otherwise you have no ability to regulate anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on May 1, 2017 1:04:53 GMT -5
How is that? Why shouldn't the states let in who they want in? Because interstate travel has no governing laws or restrictions. If San Francisco decides that the SFO airport is going to have an open door policy, then everyone will simply fly there and travel to their intended destination. You have to have entry mandated and governed by the federal government otherwise you have no ability to regulate anything. So, the feds should regulate all guns, cars, drugs, etc... Because right now we can have a violent ex-felon drive over to Missouri to grab a gun, pop on over to Colorado to load up on weed, then head up to Idaho and try to start a drug business and extortion racket all in 24hrs. That is an issue for the Federal government, so are you saying the Feds should have the rights to restrict anything at all that can be transported over state lines? Or is it just people? And if it is just people, why? My point is the whole thing is a slippery slope, and each side wants the Feds massively overeachingly almost violently involved when it comes to their personal issues. Very hypocritical. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 1:37:36 GMT -5
Because interstate travel has no governing laws or restrictions. If San Francisco decides that the SFO airport is going to have an open door policy, then everyone will simply fly there and travel to their intended destination. You have to have entry mandated and governed by the federal government otherwise you have no ability to regulate anything. So, the feds should regulate all guns, cars, drugs, etc... Because right now we can have a violent ex-felon drive over to Missouri to grab a gun, pop on over to Colorado to load up on weed, then head up to Idaho and try to start a drug business and extortion racket all in 24hrs. That is an issue for the Federal government, so are you saying the Feds should have the rights to restrict anything at all that can be transported over state lines? Or is it just people? And if it is just people, why? My point is the whole thing is a slippery slope, and each side wants the Feds massively overeachingly almost violently involved when it comes to their personal issues. Very hypocritical. the federal government has to be the enforcer of who comes here because it is illegal and unrealistic to screen all people traveling between states. If you don't set a standard of law, 1 of 50 states can blow the whole thing up. This is no different than the federal government controlling inbound products like produce, animals and medicine.... if one state cuts standards for produce inspectons and Mexico sends that state a truckload of lettuce that is infested with a destructive pest, then it is repackaged and transferred state to state, the low standards of that one state will fuck the whole country. Federal has to have a standard set, and it's up to other states to increase their laws upward if they want to |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on May 1, 2017 1:50:03 GMT -5
So, the feds should regulate all guns, cars, drugs, etc... Because right now we can have a violent ex-felon drive over to Missouri to grab a gun, pop on over to Colorado to load up on weed, then head up to Idaho and try to start a drug business and extortion racket all in 24hrs. That is an issue for the Federal government, so are you saying the Feds should have the rights to restrict anything at all that can be transported over state lines? Or is it just people? And if it is just people, why? My point is the whole thing is a slippery slope, and each side wants the Feds massively overeachingly almost violently involved when it comes to their personal issues. Very hypocritical. the federal government has to be the enforcer of who comes here because it is illegal and unrealistic to screen all people traveling between states. If you don't set a standard of law, 1 of 50 states can blow the whole thing up. This is no different than the federal government controlling inbound products like produce, animals and medicine.... if one state cuts standards for produce inspectons and Mexico sends that state a truckload of lettuce that is infested with a destructive pest, then it is repackaged and transferred state to state, the low standards of that one state will fuck the whole country. Federal has to have a standard set, and it's up to other states to increase their laws upward if they want to So I shouldn't expect you to complain if Trump or the next president bans guns outright? So you disagree with the states legalizing marijuana? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 2:06:17 GMT -5
the federal government has to be the enforcer of who comes here because it is illegal and unrealistic to screen all people traveling between states. If you don't set a standard of law, 1 of 50 states can blow the whole thing up. This is no different than the federal government controlling inbound products like produce, animals and medicine.... if one state cuts standards for produce inspectons and Mexico sends that state a truckload of lettuce that is infested with a destructive pest, then it is repackaged and transferred state to state, the low standards of that one state will fuck the whole country. Federal has to have a standard set, and it's up to other states to increase their laws upward if they want to So I shouldn't expect you to complain if Trump or the next president bans guns outright? So you disagree with the states legalizing marijuana? Ithe federal government cannot ban guns without altering the constitution.... so if they tried I would feel it is an illegal act... there is nothing in the constitution that says anyone can come live here. I am against states making weed legal when the Feds say it shouldn't be. I did vote to legalize it in California but would not be opposed to the Feds raiding and seizing money and property... everyone knows they are breaking federal law. We are all choosing to live here with the protection of our military and financial entities that are controlled nationally. If you snub your nose at federal laws or the constitution you are asking for problems. You can always move if the federal standard doesn't favor your ideas |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 7:25:52 GMT -5
So I shouldn't expect you to complain if Trump or the next president bans guns outright? So you disagree with the states legalizing marijuana? Ithe federal government cannot ban guns without altering the constitution.... so if they tried I would feel it is an illegal act... there is nothing in the constitution that says anyone can come live here. I am against states making weed legal when the Feds say it shouldn't be. I did vote to legalize it in California but would not be opposed to the Feds raiding and seizing money and property... everyone knows they are breaking federal law. We are all choosing to live here with the protection of our military and financial entities that are controlled nationally. If you snub your nose at federal laws or the constitution you are asking for problems. You can always move if the federal standard doesn't favor your ideas This is such an unrealistic standard and lousy argument. If I don't like the overreaching federal government I can just pack up and ship out. Seems easy enough. I'm sure everyone that has an issue can uproot their family, sell their homes, pay for relocation, and land a nice paying job anywhere else on earth. I agree with your other points except the federal government should not be allowed to blanket ban marijuana and still impose their will on the states. The Feds, per our Constitution should have a very small role in our day to day lives. |
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on May 1, 2017 9:36:03 GMT -5
So I guess some honky shot up some nonwhites in California
|
|
|
|
Post by Baph on May 1, 2017 10:13:54 GMT -5
Looks like a "suicide with a kick" deal. Lost job, bankrupt, borderline homeless, completely snapped. Calm as fuck sociopath goes and casually starts shooting at people who are happy (pool party).
|
|
|
|
Post by Baph on May 1, 2017 10:50:50 GMT -5
The Pope came out railing on libertarianism last week. WTF? An authoritarian dictator doesn't like decentralized social systems?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 14:32:04 GMT -5
Ithe federal government cannot ban guns without altering the constitution.... so if they tried I would feel it is an illegal act... there is nothing in the constitution that says anyone can come live here. I am against states making weed legal when the Feds say it shouldn't be. I did vote to legalize it in California but would not be opposed to the Feds raiding and seizing money and property... everyone knows they are breaking federal law. We are all choosing to live here with the protection of our military and financial entities that are controlled nationally. If you snub your nose at federal laws or the constitution you are asking for problems. You can always move if the federal standard doesn't favor your ideas This is such an unrealistic standard and lousy argument. If I don't like the overreaching federal government I can just pack up and ship out. Seems easy enough. I'm sure everyone that has an issue can uproot their family, sell their homes, pay for relocation, and land a nice paying job anywhere else on earth. I agree with your other points except the federal government should not be allowed to blanket ban marijuana and still impose their will on the states. The Feds, per our Constitution should have a very small role in our day to day lives. Banning weed is not overreaching... it has been illegal for the last 100+ years. I am not saying it should be illegal, I am saying that if you are going to tell the Feds that a Law that was on the books before your great grandpa was born doesn't apply to you, then there should be punishment or you can leave. If you are allowed to ignore federal law and grow/use weed... then I want a free felony card that I can use at my discretion to avoid jail for any federally recognized crime. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 16:45:39 GMT -5
This is such an unrealistic standard and lousy argument. If I don't like the overreaching federal government I can just pack up and ship out. Seems easy enough. I'm sure everyone that has an issue can uproot their family, sell their homes, pay for relocation, and land a nice paying job anywhere else on earth. I agree with your other points except the federal government should not be allowed to blanket ban marijuana and still impose their will on the states. The Feds, per our Constitution should have a very small role in our day to day lives. Banning weed is not overreaching... it has been illegal for the last 100+ years. I am not saying it should be illegal, I am saying that if you are going to tell the Feds that a Law that was on the books before your great grandpa was born doesn't apply to you, then there should be punishment or you can leave. If you are allowed to ignore federal law and grow/use weed... then I want a free felony card that I can use at my discretion to avoid jail for any federally recognized crime. My argument would be that it has always been a state issue and unless you are trafficking in it, federal law need not apply. When a state legalize weed, the federal government should step out of their state and stop enforcing it at a federal level because ultimately the power is of the people and the states. Just because that is how it works now doesn't mean it is right. The federal government should recognize the autonomy of the state unless, like you pointed out, it will impact the rest of the country. Smoking pot in California affects nobody but Californians, until they cross state lines with the stuff, federal agents should kick rocks. If we want to talk about respecting the Constitution. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 17:35:30 GMT -5
The federal law against marijuana can eat a big bag of dicks. They aren't enforcing it. And the budget that pushes us to September includes the same amendment that stops Sessions from prosecuting anyone. I understand that they do need to just remove marijuana from the schedule of controlled substances entirely for the sake of legitimacy, but that isn't happening in 2017.
It's not that medical growers are ignoring federal law. It's that the people who enforce federal law are being forced to ignore the growers.
All the medical growers I know paid their income taxes on their weed generated income last year, so they aren't ignoring federal law. They're just respecting the laws that are actually being enforced.
|
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on May 1, 2017 17:50:02 GMT -5
Maher earning some more street cred. Calls out Obama I have pointed out how Maher and John Stewart do this stuff in "garbage time" just to strengthen the big lies they put over during election seasons |
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on May 1, 2017 17:51:53 GMT -5
Looks like a "suicide with a kick" deal. Lost job, bankrupt, borderline homeless, completely snapped. That describes almost all spree killers, and you forgot "definitely not getting laid in recent past or foreseeable future." |
|
|
|
Post by Baph on May 1, 2017 21:05:55 GMT -5
Maher earning some more street cred. Calls out Obama I have pointed out how Maher and John Stewart do this stuff in "garbage time" just to strengthen the big lies they put over during election seasons You have, convincingly so, but I'll take garbage minutes concessions over rabid antifa militants any day of the week. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 4:45:12 GMT -5
the federal government has to be the enforcer of who comes here because it is illegal and unrealistic to screen all people traveling between states. If you don't set a standard of law, 1 of 50 states can blow the whole thing up. This is no different than the federal government controlling inbound products like produce, animals and medicine.... if one state cuts standards for produce inspectons and Mexico sends that state a truckload of lettuce that is infested with a destructive pest, then it is repackaged and transferred state to state, the low standards of that one state will fuck the whole country. Federal has to have a standard set, and it's up to other states to increase their laws upward if they want to So I shouldn't expect you to complain if Trump or the next president bans guns outright? So you disagree with the states legalizing marijuana? Probably the dumbest hypothetical you've floated around here in a LONG time.
So dumb, in fact, that it doesn't deserve the courtesy of a response.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on May 2, 2017 8:07:17 GMT -5
Banning weed is not overreaching... it has been illegal for the last 100+ years. I am not saying it should be illegal, I am saying that if you are going to tell the Feds that a Law that was on the books before your great grandpa was born doesn't apply to you, then there should be punishment or you can leave. If you are allowed to ignore federal law and grow/use weed... then I want a free felony card that I can use at my discretion to avoid jail for any federally recognized crime. When a state legalize weed, the federal government should step out of their state and stop enforcing it at a federal level because ultimately the power is of the people and the states. Just because that is how it works now doesn't mean it is right. The federal government should recognize the autonomy of the state unless, like you pointed out, it will impact the rest of the country. Smoking pot in California affects nobody but Californians, until they cross state lines with the stuff, federal agents should kick rocks. If we want to talk about respecting the Constitution.The 9th Circuit agreed with you. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagreed, finding that even the personal cultivation and use of marijuana affects interstate commerce and thus can rightfully be outlawed under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. This decision stretched the Commerce Clause powers to what I assume must be their absolute limit. Of note, this is one of only a small handful of cases of significance where Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia were on opposite sides of a decision. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich |
|
|
|
Post by Baph on May 2, 2017 10:29:01 GMT -5
The fucking commerce clause, man. Yeesh. What a terrible decision followed by multiple terrible interpretations. You got a tax stamp on that pot plant, boy? See Jimmy Kimmel break down and cry last night because socialized medicine is a moral issue and unless it's run by the inept, corrupt feds there's no other way to achieve coverage for pre existing conditions? This is a theme for the left on most issues: get emotional, get "too close" to the issue, get irrational and personalize it, misstate the opposing view as evil, greedy, racist, all the hens on The View agree with you and applaud your bold stand.  Also saw the antifa marxist loons went berzerk again on May Day in Seattle and Portland, public arson, window smashing, attacking police, chanting demands for Venezuelan style government. Meanwhile, people in Venezuela are killing and eating stray dogs to avoid starvation.  |
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on May 2, 2017 11:28:29 GMT -5
The fucking commerce clause, man. Yeesh. See Jimmy Kimmel break down and cry last night because socialized medicine is a moral issue and unless it's run by the inept, corrupt feds there's no other way to achieve coverage for pre existing conditions? This is a theme for the left on most issues: get emotional, get "too close" to the issue, get irrational and personalize it, misstate the opposing view as evil, greedy, racist, all the hens on The View agree with you and applaud your bold stand. shit.........I actually agree with you on this |
|
|
|
Post by Baph on May 2, 2017 11:46:28 GMT -5
Underlying this demand for the same people who run the DMV and the Post Office to take over heathcare is a fundamental belief that humans are incompetent and evil and need a master to protect them from themselves, AND that somehow these incompetent, evil people don't get into government positions (literal wtf). In essence, it's a fundamental disagreement with freedom. People are largely bad and must be controlled and forced into doing what this small, more evolved handful of us know to be good.
Do you like the idea of covering pre-existing conditions? Would you support (choose coverage from, donate to) a company who did this? Would you support tax credits for a company who did this? Can we, the people, 310 million strong in 50 states, tinker around and find solutions to this problem that will be more innovative, clever, and efficient than whatever Bernie Sanders or Paul Ryan or some other dipshit cobbles together on his shitty power point? We have no faith in each other, in ourselves, but we'll turn our fate over wholesale to these fucking sleazeball schmucks who commit their lives to political ambitions and pandering? Christ, man. Get a grip. Stand up straight. Let's fix our own problems. Health care is not that difficult. And most of the issues with it's functionality are the RESULT of government "helping" . . . it's why there are so many middle men driving up costs, so few interstate markets driving down competition, so few generic drugs covered by policies driving up corporate profits, overly regulated, overly litigious, overly protected bubble world and the solutions is to just let Bernie take the thing over? LOL to fucking death. Yes, let's do THAT. Jesus. All these roadblocks and clutter and the fat cat loophole system rigging is the RESULT of this help you're crying for more of. This is where that road leads.
Who do you want fixing your problems -- Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates . . . or Bernie Sanders and John McCain and Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump and these fucking pompous, phony, completely fucking phony-ass, low IQ hustlers who couldn't hold down a middle management position at Microsoft??
The only thing I want a politician to do is get -- THE FUCK -- away from me.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on May 2, 2017 12:44:05 GMT -5
The purpose of the government is to protect the individual freedoms of its citizens.
It's purpose is not to financialy profit by stripping away individual freedoms...
that's a bastardization, and what's currently taking place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 13:55:32 GMT -5
Underlying this demand for the same people who run the DMV and the Post Office to take over heathcare is a fundamental belief that humans are incompetent and evil and need a master to protect them from themselves, AND that somehow these incompetent, evil people don't get into government positions (literal wtf). In essence, it's a fundamental disagreement with freedom. People are largely bad and must be controlled and forced into doing what this small, more evolved handful of us know to be good. Do you like the idea of covering pre-existing conditions? Would you support (choose coverage from, donate to) a company who did this? Would you support tax credits for a company who did this? Can we, the people, 310 million strong in 50 states, tinker around and find solutions to this problem that will be more innovative, clever, and efficient than whatever Bernie Sanders or Paul Ryan or some other dipshit cobbles together on his shitty power point? We have no faith in each other, in ourselves, but we'll turn our fate over wholesale to these fucking sleazeball schmucks who commit their lives to political ambitions and pandering? Christ, man. Get a grip. Stand up straight. Let's fix our own problems. Health care is not that difficult. And most of the issues with it's functionality are the RESULT of government "helping" . . . it's why there are so many middle men driving up costs, so few interstate markets driving down competition, so few generic drugs covered by policies driving up corporate profits, overly regulated, overly litigious, overly protected bubble world and the solutions is to just let Bernie take the thing over? LOL to fucking death. Yes, let's do THAT. Jesus. All these roadblocks and clutter and the fat cat loophole system rigging is the RESULT of this help you're crying for more of. This is where that road leads. Who do you want fixing your problems -- Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates . . . or Bernie Sanders and John McCain and Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump and these fucking pompous, phony, completely fucking phony-ass, low IQ hustlers who couldn't hold down a middle management position at Microsoft?? The only thing I want a politician to do is get -- THE FUCK -- away from me. We have been around on this topic before but I mostly agree with this. I don't agree that healthcare is not that difficult though. Just agreeing on what healthcare is usually halts the conversation, is it a right or is it a service? I say the latter but many other countries amd people in our country say the former. I don't like the FDA over-regulating shit, we have some of the most stringent regulations in the world (on many things medicine) so I think we can peel away some layers but there has to be a governing body protecting its citizens. The FDA should be the pharmacology equivalent of our military. Protect us but don't get in the way of everything. You need evidence that a drug is safe and effective before going to market or else you end up with naturopaths giving bleach enemas to cure your kids autism because you don't know what else to do. There are many well intentioned doctors and epidemiologist that say we need even tighter regulation because medicine hurts and kills a lot of people every year. I'm not trying to appeal to their authority, jist pointing out there is another side of the argument that has merit. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on May 2, 2017 15:59:06 GMT -5
If human labor is involved in the process, then it's a service.
|
|
