Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The running joke seems to be about RBG staying alive for the next 6 years, but my question is this: How long can the dems keep a "weekend at bernies" situation going with her if she does kick it? She'll die and we wont hear of it for a year. 

Posted
  On 10/9/2018 at 2:15 PM, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

No, she does not.

 

Senators do not represent the electorate.  They represent the interests of the several states, and are supposed to be the advocate for state's rights within the federal government.

 

That they have abrogated this duty, and that the 17th prescribes direct election, does not change what the Senate represents within our bicameral legislature.

 

In fact, it's the whole purpose of it's bicameral nature.

 

Yours is an argument for the abolition of the Senate, even though you don't realize it.

 

 

Expand  

What is a state without people? Besides Wyoming and SNorth Dakota of course.

 

In all seriousness, what are the interests of a particular state separate from the interests of that state's constituents? 

Posted
  On 10/9/2018 at 4:51 PM, LSHMEAB said:

What is a state without people? Besides Wyoming and SNorth Dakota of course.

 

In all seriousness, what are the interests of a particular state separate from the interests of that state's constituents? 

Expand  

You are a joke. You're annoying here.  And anyone consistently replying to you should be banned.  You efforts to make PPP what you are, a jumbled mess of a shamble is exactly that - you obfuscate every topic you touch.

 

Lshmeab = shamble. I'm going to just think of you for what you are.  Slow adult.  

Posted
  On 10/9/2018 at 4:51 PM, LSHMEAB said:

What is a state without people? Besides Wyoming and SNorth Dakota of course.

 

In all seriousness, what are the interests of a particular state separate from the interests of that state's constituents? 

Expand  

 

What do you know about the concepts of states rights vs individual rights vs federal permissions?

  • Sad 1
Posted
  On 10/9/2018 at 5:00 PM, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

What do you know about the concepts of states rights vs individual rights vs federal permissions?

Expand  

I know that my state now allows individuals to buy and sell marijuana with tepid federal permission.

 

I don't understand what entity Murkowski is representing with her SC vote if not the people....err....state she represents.

Posted
  On 10/9/2018 at 4:51 PM, LSHMEAB said:

What is a state without people? Besides Wyoming and SNorth Dakota of course.

 

In all seriousness, what are the interests of a particular state separate from the interests of that state's constituents? 

Expand  

 

Read the Constitution, and note the difference in responsibilities between House and Senate.

 

That's your answer.

Posted
  On 10/9/2018 at 5:00 PM, Boyst62 said:

Why give him time of day?

Expand  

 

Because cordial disagreement is not cause for dismissal, and I have found him to be neither argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, nor intentionally intellectually dishonest.  IE.  I believe open conversation about important issues to be vital to the health of our society, and try to do my best (though sometimes I fail) to welcome all honest participants to discuss their ideas, and to vet mine.

 

I'm not interested in echo chambers.  They aren't healthy.

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted

Naw. It's actually a Nazi flag for their dirigible corps. That's appropriate. They're a bunch of Nazis and they're lighter than air and think they're superior. 

Posted
  On 10/9/2018 at 5:04 PM, LSHMEAB said:

I know that my state now allows individuals to buy and sell marijuana with tepid federal permission.

 

I don't understand what entity Murkowski is representing with her SC vote if not the people....err....state she represents.

Expand  

 

It goes back to the Foundational concept that the bodies of law governing individuals in America are supposed to exist, in an overwhelming way, at the state and local level; and that very few laws should exist on a federal level.

 

States rights were the intention that the citizens of Alaska might choose to live their lives under a very different set of laws than citizens of Florida. (neither of those states being part of the original Compact, but I'm using them as examples of people living in very different places with very different cultures and political beliefs).

 

States rights, as a concept, protect New Yorkers from having to live under the auspices of the political philosophies of Texans, and vice versa.  The idea being that individual citizens are far more prone to swells of populism and stoked mob desire than the state governments themselves; and that a government dictated by populism was far more prone to upheaval and instability than one steadied by statesmen, who were themselves still beholden, somewhat indirectly to the citizens.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
  On 10/9/2018 at 5:14 PM, Nanker said:

Naw. It's actually a Nazi flag for their dirigible corps. That's appropriate. They're a bunch of Nazis and they're lighter than air and think they're superior. 

Expand  

 

I think you missed the joke...

Posted (edited)
  On 10/9/2018 at 5:24 PM, B-Man said:

Let's not give up on this so quick.

 

Related image

 

 

And then................."Mother Nature" can take care of the rest

 

 

.

Expand  

 

I propose that the citizens of "New California" quickly settle this dispute and get along quickly with the dividing of their state into two or three, else they be swept out as part of the problem.

 

The United States does not need California, much less coastal California; and I say be done with them.

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
  • Like (+1) 4
Posted
  On 10/9/2018 at 5:24 PM, B-Man said:

Let's not give up on this so quick.

 

Related image

 

 

And then................."Mother Nature" can take care of the rest

 

 

.

Expand  

 

Build a wall and let the people in the blue area feed themselves (as well as all of the illegal aliens they like to provide 'sanctuary' for), since they have such disdain for the rest of the nation.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
  On 10/9/2018 at 5:24 PM, B-Man said:

Let's not give up on this so quick.

 

Related image

 

 

And then................."Mother Nature" can take care of the rest

 

 

.

Expand  

 

It's all a dream, I know, but this will never happen. CA will never be split up into multiple states, and it will never be its own country. It will just continue to be the Angelina Jolie of the country: beautiful to look at, but broken and crazy on the inside. 

Edited by LABillzFan
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
  On 10/9/2018 at 5:26 PM, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I propose that the citizens of "New California" quickly settle this dispute and get along quickly with the dividing of their state into two or three, else they be swept out as part of the problem.

 

The United States does not need California, much less costal California; and I say be done with them.

Expand  

Nor only that, but i do not want to reward California for their idiocy by giving them 4 or 6 Senators instead of the 2 they have now... 

 

×
×
  • Create New...