Measure 36

Originally posted by RaventheOnly
You are wrong. The government cannot infringe on the rights of a state. "All powers not deligated to the federal government are deligated to the states" Massachuttes only 100 years ago had a state religion which forced the citizens to pay a church tax. 😐

No, no I'm not. If this was the case, slavery and segregation would still be in place today.

Or did you miss the part where the Judicial Branch of the government deemed it unconstitutional?

The same would happen with religion. "Seperation of church and state" has more than one meaning.

You're really cocky for someone who was just proved wrong. You really do think you know everything about politics. That's funny.

Originally posted by Darth Revan
You didn't ask me a question, unless you were referring to your first sentance, which, as I already said, I don't understand.

"Genius," "smartass," put it however you want... All I know is that whenever you get on about politics, you get up on your high-horse. And I know there are others who would agree with me.

I agree. You think you're always right RTO.

"Welcome to real life!" - Lonestarr, Spaceballs

Was anyone actually expecting any of these propositions supporting gay rights to pass? The people of this country as a majority is still to bigoted to allow true equal rights to all people. It's funny, because most people don't even know that they are bigoted on this matter. They are all "oh yeah, gays should have equal rights for sure, but they shouldn't be allowed to get married.". Yeah, let me know when you get your head out of your ass, then we'll talk.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
No, no I'm not. If this was the case, slavery and segregation would still be in place today.

Or did you miss the part where the Judicial Branch of the government deemed it unconstitutional?

The same would happen with religion. "Seperation of church and state" has more than one meaning.

You're really cocky for someone who was just proved wrong. You really do think you know everything about politics. That's funny.

"Seperation of church and state" are implied judicial precidents. And state means federal government 🙄

Slavery and segregation being abolished was a bending of the rules actually which was allowed mutually by the leaders at the time for obvious reasons, htey were horrible ideals that they fought a CIVIL WAR OVER.

Originally posted by BackFire
Was anyone actually expecting any of these propositions supporting gay rights to pass? The people of this country as a majority is still to bigoted to allow true equal rights to all people. It's funny, because most people don't even know that they are bigoted on this matter. They are all "oh yeah, gays should have equal rights for sure, but they shouldn't be allowed to get married.". Yeah, let me know when you get your head out of your ass, then we'll talk.

Man, I thought I was the only one. 😛

Originally posted by Darth Revan
You didn't ask me a question, unless you were referring to your first sentance, which, as I already said, I don't understand.

"Genius," "smartass," put it however you want... All I know is that whenever you get on about politics, you get up on your high-horse. And I know there are others who would agree with me. I wasn't referring to the "factual" things you say in your posts, only to the way you state opinion as fact. Actually, the way you state "fact," too. Not all of which is correct. 😐

Not understanding doesn't give you the right to try and go around the point and try to insult me.

Refering to is not an absolute statement. One cannot assume a person assumes the same as you.

I am not on a high horse. I am handing you a pint and an arguement and it is your duty if you wish to challenge those with your own words and ideals that are either equal or overcoming.

Originally posted by RaventheOnly
"Seperation of church and state" are implied judicial precidents. And state means federal government 🙄

Slavery and segregation being abolished was a bending of the rules actually which was allowed mutually by the leaders at the time for obvious reasons, htey were horrible ideals that they fought a CIVIL WAR OVER.

Like I said, more than one meaning. I know it means federal government, but the actual word is "state". Which do you think people are going to argue about more?

The Civil War was over which state should go where, and then it turned into a war over slavery. The war wasn't over segregation. Segregation wasn't ended until the Civil Rights movement in the 50s and 60s. Get your facts straight, please, before acting cocky again.

Originally posted by BackFire
Was anyone actually expecting any of these propositions supporting gay rights to pass? The people of this country as a majority is still to bigoted to allow true equal rights to all people. It's funny, because most people don't even know that they are bigoted on this matter. They are all "oh yeah, gays should have equal rights for sure, but they shouldn't be allowed to get married.". Yeah, let me know when you get your head out of your ass, then we'll talk.

hysterical exactly 😂 that is why california is an inigma in it and of itself. 😂

Originally posted by RaventheOnly
Not understanding doesn't give you the right to try and go around the point and try to insult me.

Refering to is not an absolute statement. One cannot assume a person assumes the same as you.

I am not on a high horse. I am handing you a pint and an arguement and it is your duty if you wish to challenge those with your own words and ideals that are either equal or overcoming.

I wasn't mad at you because I didn't understand the first sentance in your post, I was mad because almost always when it comes to politics, you have to act like a cocky ass and blur the lines between opinion and fact. I have tried for a very long time now to argue with you like a civilized human being, and I am finding it increasingly difficult. Nothing has changed, just my level of tolerence to people who act like you.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Like I said, more than one meaning. I know it means federal government, but the actual word is "state". Which do you think people are going to argue about more?

The Civil War was over which state should go where, and then it turned into a war over slavery. The war wasn't over segregation. Segregation wasn't ended until the Civil Rights movement in the 50s and 60s. Get your facts straight, please, before acting cocky again.

What? the civil war was fought over the right to own slaves were you wish and to prove that the federal govenment was more powerfull then the states on matters in the constitution. The state part you are thinking is over the kansas and mississippi borderline think. "bleeding Kansas" ring a bell? Please do not try to lecture me on facts.

Originally posted by RaventheOnly
What? the civil war was fought over the right to own slaves were you wish and to prove that the federal govenment was more powerfull then the states on matters in the constitution. The state part you are thinking is over the kansas and mississippi borderline think. "bleeding Kansas" ring a bell? Please do not try to lecture me on facts.

You're both a little bit wrong... The civil war was fought over a lot of things. The old "it was fought over slavery" explanation is the one given to first graders, since their level of developmental intelligence is not high enough to handle the full list of events leading up to the conflict. It was much more complicated than that.

Originally posted by Darth Revan
I wasn't mad at you because I didn't understand the first sentance in your post, I was mad because almost always when it comes to politics, you have to act like a cocky ass and blur the lines between opinion and fact. I have tried for a very long time now to argue with you like a civilized human being, and I am finding it increasingly difficult. Nothing has changed, just my level of tolerence to people who act like you.

Opinion is derived from fact. The two both must be used to prove an arguement and interpret evidence in the favor of the speaker.

Whenever i post, i am either ignored or attacked. Very few people can actually stand at odds and have a conversation it seems.

Originally posted by RaventheOnly
What? the civil war was fought over the right to own slaves were you wish and to prove that the federal govenment was more powerfull then the states on matters in the constitution. The state part you are thinking is over the kansas and mississippi borderline think. "bleeding Kansas" ring a bell? Please do not try to lecture me on facts.

Bleeding Kansas started the whole ****ing mess! The south wanted a slave state, the north wanted a free state. They started a war over it, then the Union changed the meaning of the war to free the slaves.

That's cute, trying to catch me off guard.

And as the war proved, the federal government is more powerful than the state government, which ultimately proves my original point.

So thanks.

Originally posted by Darth Revan
You're both a little bit wrong... The civil war was fought over a lot of things. The old "it was fought over slavery" explanation is the one given to first graders, since their level of developmental intelligence is not high enough to handle the full list of events leading up to the conflict. It was much more complicated than that.

I once thought it was only given to children to, but the more you get into it the clearer it becomes, this was fought at the base slavery and piled upon it, who had power. Andrew Jackson had the first taste of "states rights" when i think south carolina refused to comply with a federal law and he threatened to deploy federal troops to enforce it. Everything else steamed from that moment and the tensions grew and grew.

Slavery was just a underlying excuse really for the south to wage a war. I think they were just confident of a win.

Imo the civil war was really fought over the fact that the north was so much better off than the south, and the only thing that the south really had was their planatations and people were just too lazy to work them themselves.

Originally posted by RaventheOnly
Opinion is derived from fact. The two both must be used to prove an arguement and interpret evidence in the favor of the speaker.

Whenever i post, i am either ignored or attacked. Very few people can actually stand at odds and have a conversation it seems.

No matter what your parents have told you, opinion is not the same as fact. This is why people have such differing opinions on different issues. Opinion is a person's interpretation of fact. Hence why two people can look at the same issue and have completely different views on it. You treat fact and opinion as if they are equivalent, which they are not.

I am perfectly capable of having a reasonable discussion. Oh, poor you, people don't like you. Just proves my point about how you need to climb down from your perch and quit being a pompous ass.

Originally posted by silver_tears
Slavery was just a underlying excuse really for the south to wage a war. I think they were just confident of a win.

Imo the civil war was really fought over the fact that the north was so much better off than the south, and the only thing that the south really had was their planatations and people were just too lazy to work them themselves.

I live in the south, and the south is still too lazy to do things for themselves.

Most of them voted for Bush. fear

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Bleeding Kansas started the whole ****ing mess! The south wanted a slave state, the north wanted a free state. They started a war over it, then the Union changed the meaning of the war to free the slaves.

That's cute, trying to catch me off guard.

And as the war proved, the federal government is more powerful than the state government, which ultimately proves my original point.

So thanks.

No, only in the point of slavery which was technically not even a federal power, what made it a federal power ironically was commerce between the states, regulated by the government. The South knew all the loop holes and that was one of the powerfullest until the Abolisionists found the commerce stance. if it were not for that the states could legally without federal control locally have slaves as long as it were confined to the designated territories. So therefore you do not understand fully the point you claimed was yours.

Originally posted by RaventheOnly
Whenever i post, i am either ignored or attacked. Very few people can actually stand at odds and have a conversation it seems.

Change your attitude, and maybe that wouldn't happen so often 😉

(That ****ing annoying smilie thing is a MAJOR part in that by the way, one here or there is fine, but you ****ing put a smilie on every sentence it seems)

Originally posted by Darth Revan
No matter what your parents have told you, opinion is not the same as fact. This is why people have such differing [B]opinions on different issues. Opinion is a person's interpretation of fact. Hence why two people can look at the same issue and have completely different views on it. You treat fact and opinion as if they are equivalent, which they are not.

I am perfectly capable of having a reasonable discussion. Oh, poor you, people don't like you. Just proves my point about how you need to climb down from your perch and quit being a pompous ass. [/B]

😐 my parents did not teach me this. Debate class did. 😐 Opinion is a major factor in swaying the people who read this, without it one has no stance.

People don't like me because they get frustrated and try to wheel out of the conversation. 98+% of the time.