:Roll: Again with the stereotypical right wing rhetoric. Tell me, do you recall what the one caveat I have placed on my assertions in this regard is? Do you think that your rhetoric is consistent with that caveat?
But it's okay for them to do it on their own property, because one individuals rights are irrelevant on another individuals property?
You already have that. You have the EPA which specializes in environmental issues. You have the FBI which specializes in ciminal matters. You have FEMA, which specializes in emergency matters. And so on and so forth. Or would you rather have one department that handles all three (to use those specific examples), because I've seen how that works, and it doesn't.
I don't consider that 'violation of rights' whatsoever. You have the Freedom of Speech, but if you come in my home shouting on top of your lungs and I don't want you there, i can remove you from my home. You can shout all you want outside. No 'rights' are violated. You still have the right to speech but you don't have the right to be at my place. You have the right to do what you are doing, but you don't have the right to be at a certain location. I don't have the right to be in the White House. But I have the right to speech anywhere I am. If the White House allows me in, I can swear at the President to my hearts content Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But being in a certain 'location' is a privilege. Anyways we already had this discussion, and I don't have any reason to repeat those 26 or so pages. Go back to that if you have to but we clearly disagreed so I'm not wasting my time having this discussion again.
Scrap it. Keep it, well at least parts of it. And so on and so forth. No I would give most of the responsibility to the State, and only keep the investigative division in the Federal level. All these things exist but at different level of government.
Not what I said. You've missed the point. Go back and re-read what I said, and then consider the post I was replying to as context, and see if you can't come up with an accurate interpretation. Again. Not what I said. Do try and keep up. Look, I'll explain it to you. You're a white shop owner, and I'm a black customer. Are you suggesting that you don't have the right to eject me because I'm black?
Scarp it and replace it with a collaboration of 50 states all clamouring on how to deal with trans boundary and regional issues, all with their singular onjectives, that must neccessarily look like the EPA, only neccessarily less efficient.
No consider I'm a Black Shop Owner and you are White Supremacist KKK Member. I can eject you for whatever reason. You don't have the right to use something that I own. Namely my business.
If thats what you think would happen. Yes. I think otherwise but even if it is less efficient, I will accept the lower efficiency if I get to keep my State Rights.
Look up in the sky. See that tiny black speck with the vapour trail? That's my point going over your head.
And once again we come back to the same basis - your entire position is predicated on the assumption that federal government must neccesarily take liberty with states rights in the first place. That's why we have a democratic process, and that's why we have things such as consultation (which is not the same thing as lobbying).
I read it. And your point was never there. Because it was a total misrepresentation of the discussion and 'rights'.
Ya and as I said a democratic process we have is a mob rule. And it shouldn't be used to take someone's right (State Rights). Fed gov should create laws that protect those rights. And each state having the rights will come together to solve the problem in their own/collective way. That is also 'democracy' but not mob rule like the Fedgov is.
Nah, you did. Democracy where the majority rules is mob rule. Voluntary interaction is much more preferable.
No, because that would only be reaffirming that you haven't understood what I was saying, or the point that was being made (or rather the point that it was going to be used to make), and we know that already. I'm quite sure you're not going to answer the question (really, it was a simple yes or no question) until I convince you of its relevance, and I'm not inclined to do so for my own reasons. I asked you a straightforward yes or no question, based on your assertion that rights trump everything else - does a white man have the right to eject a black man from their shop simply because they are black? Now, you can either answer the question, or continue evading it and looking like an ass. I really don't give two shits either way.
Once again, you reaffirm that you do not, and have not at any point in this discussion actually managed to grasp what I was driving at.
