Executive branch (Federal) VS Executive branch (State)

[ASCIIGHOST]

Please note the hypocrisy of the various pro-government clique here, that they love laws enforced behind one imaginary border, but not laws enforced behind another imaginary boarder. You want federal branch to enforce laws at one level of society, because you think it works. Its people, with power, making decisions they feel educated on, and you're all for it. On the flip side, you want state federal branch to not enforce laws at another level of society. I will even give you benefit of doubt, and say your against non-violent drug offenders, and targeted ethnic groups to fill privatized prisons. You do NOT want federal branch at state level because you think they kill and destroy society, but pigs are same as in DC. They are people, with power, making decisions they feel educated on, and you're all against it. For shame. For shame.

 

[ChesusRice]

Anytime someone has mispelled border as boarder

They always give themselves away as racist. I haven't been wrong yet

 

[ginwilly]

I grew up hearing a man's home is his castle. It used to be the order of the power hierarchy was my home, my community, my state, my country. This was the original design but the central planners have reversed the food chart. The individual is the bottom of the food chain now and as long as we maintain a two party system nothing will change. We are only perpetuating an evil cycle by voting the lesser of two evils. The only outcome can be increased evil.

Not sure what the answer is. The easy answer is get out and vote, but we've become a misinformed pom pom waving voting populace. I don't trust us anymore. We defend or criticize based on party affiliation instead of merit. It's nearly impossible to actually know the merit because the truth coming out of DC is a pink unicorn. People are trained to believe it if it's from your team and disbelieve if it's from the other.

LOL cheezy! Didn't take long for you to make an example of yourself. "I don't understand, can't really refute anything, RACIST!!!"

You don't disappoint, that's for sure.

 

[sheskunk]

Anytime someone has mispelled border as boarder

They give always given themselves away as racist. I haven't been wrong yet

*misspelled

What?

 

[ASCIIGHOST]

Anytime someone has mispelled border as boarder

They give always given themselves away as racist. I haven't been wrong yet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law

 

[ginwilly]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law

Ha! that's the first time I've heard of that... but so true.

 

[ASCIIGHOST]

Ha! that's the first time I've heard of that... but so true.

i just wait for it to happen. ive been on the internet long enough to those who like to habitually point out grammar within an informal forum setting have nothing else to contribute.

 

[UncleBuck]

It used to be the order of the power hierarchy was my home, my community, my state, my country. This was the original design but the central planners have reversed the food chart.

actually, the founding fathers baked the supremacy clause right into the pie.

The individual is the bottom of the food chain now and as long as we maintain a two party system nothing will change.

the individual has to give up certain rights in a society.

for example, to your dismay, individuals can no longer kick people out of stores based on skin color.

i know you oppose that law, but it is for the common good.

We defend or criticize based on party affiliation instead of merit.

i never bring up your party affiliation (KKK) when i point out your failed ideas, like evolution only happening from the neck down in certain geographic regions.

LOL cheezy! Didn't take long for you to make an example of yourself. "I don't understand, can't really refute anything, RACIST!!!"

You don't disappoint, that's for sure.

you are a white supremacist though, and you cant refute him on that because you know you are.

hence why you have stopped even trying to explain your "neck down" evolution theory.

 

[UncleBuck]

i just wait for it to happen. ive been on the internet long enough to those who like to habitually point out grammar within an informal forum setting have nothing else to contribute.

what have you contributed, besides white supremacy propaganda and spam?

even this thread itself is just "states rights" spam. hence why white supremcist ginwilly is here.

 

[ASCIIGHOST]

what have you contributed, besides white supremacy propaganda and spam?

even this thread itself is just "states rights" spam. hence why white supremcist ginwilly is here.

sometimes its what you dont contribute, that counts. you contribute pictures of children, that are removed by admins. why do they remove them?

 

[ChesusRice]

what have you contributed, besides white supremacy propaganda and spam?

even this thread itself is just "states rights" spam. hence why white supremcist ginwilly is here.

"States rights" always brings out the racist maggots
Since the civil war

 

[Rob Roy]

actually, the founding fathers baked the supremacy clause right into the pie.



the individual has to give up certain rights in a society.

for example, to your dismay, individuals can no longer kick people out of stores based on skin color.

i know you oppose that law, but it is for the common good.



i never bring up your party affiliation (KKK) when i point out your failed ideas, like evolution only happening from the neck down in certain geographic regions.



you are a white supremacist though, and you cant refute him on that because you know you are.

hence why you have stopped even trying to explain your "neck down" evolution theory.

You are wrong, as usual. The individual did not "give up" certain rights. They were removed under threat of force by an act of legislation.

There is a significant difference between somebody voluntarily relinquishing something and having them acquiesce under threat of force.

Also the "common good" argument is a fallacy in most contexts it is used, and is merely a rationalization for a forcibly held hierarchy to control people that are not engaged in harming others.

You have a government kool aid mustache and should go wash it off.

 

[Rob Roy]

"States rights" always brings out the racist maggots
Since the civil war

States and Federal governments have no more right to control other people than you or I do. They just have lots of idiots and are willing to claim a consensus of idiots creates a right to initiate aggression.

If you or I as individuals have no right to control other people that aren't harming us, how does a collection of individuals acquire that so called "right" ?

 

[Harrekin]

Reported as spam.

 

[UncleBuck]

You are wrong, as usual. The individual did not "give up" certain rights. They were removed under threat of force by an act of legislation.

There is a significant difference between somebody voluntarily relinquishing something and having them acquiesce under threat of force.

Also the "common good" argument is a fallacy in most contexts it is used, and is merely a rationalization for a forcibly held hierarchy to control people that are not engaged in harming others.

You have a government kool aid mustache and should go wash it off.

well, maybe people like you had to be forced to integrate and stop kicking black people out of stores, the rest of us who aren't racist losers like you were happy to integrate.

 

[Rob Roy]

well, maybe people like you had to be forced to integrate and stop kicking black people out of stores, the rest of us who aren't racist losers like you were happy to integrate.

Rapists, slave owners and governments all force people to "integrate" don't they?

I've never owned a store, wouldn't discriminate based on something superficial like race, but would discriminate against people that are not potty trained. I'm sorry.

 

[UncleBuck]

Rapists, slave owners and governments all force people to "integrate" don't they?

are you comparing doing business with black people to slavery and rape again?

 

[Rob Roy]

are you comparing doing business with black people to slavery and rape again?

No. I'm comparing using force to make a person serve you with slavery and rape. What does a black person have to do with my comparison? How is that relevant?

 

[UncleBuck]

No. I'm comparing using force to make a person serve you with slavery and rape. What does a black person have to do with my comparison? How is that relevant?

so you finally found a store that was forced to be open to the public, rather than private?

where is it?

 

[Rob Roy]

so you finally found a store that was forced to be open to the public, rather than private?

where is it?

Your question is based in a false dichotomized scenario.