Sessions has resigned

[Patooka]

What do you think a government comprises? Fascist dog whistles? I'll give you a hint; it rhymes with meeple.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Sessions is a drug warrior. He had made it clear that he hates state legalization laws and desires to forcefully enforce federal laws in states where the people dared to legalizes. Forgive me if I fail to weep. This is not a Poe.

So you're for states' rights when it's about pot but against states' rights when it's about guns.

I'm in favor of peoples rights when it's about people. Having the state violate your rights is just as bad as having the fed violate your rights. The only way to interpret it otherwise, given my posting history, is to think of the government as the end-all and be-all of society, and the only question is which layer of government should have complete rule. I say that the people have rights that no layer of government should infringe. It is so simple only a fascist could fail to understand.

No, that would make you an anarchist which you claim you're not.

 

[Elixir]

I say that the people have rights that no layer of government should infringe.

So does the Constitution. Too bad we have a pResident who couldn't care less what the Constitution says.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

I say that the people have rights that no layer of government should infringe.

So does the Constitution. Too bad we have a pResident who couldn't care less what the Constitution says.

Agreed. Too bad for Trump it doesn’t matter what he likes, wants or couldn’t care less about. His hands are tied by the Constitution. Every time he’s tried to violate it, he’s had his pussy-grabbing tiny hands slapped.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm in favor of peoples rights when it's about people. Having the state violate your rights is just as bad as having the fed violate your rights. The only way to interpret it otherwise, given my posting history, is to think of the government as the end-all and be-all of society, and the only question is which layer of government should have complete rule. I say that the people have rights that no layer of government should infringe. It is so simple only a fascist could fail to understand.

No, that would make you an anarchist which you claim you're not.

Saying that people have rights that the government should infringe does not make one an anarchist. I suppose if you think government is supreme in everything like some fascist government you might feel otherwise.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm in favor of peoples rights when it's about people. Having the state violate your rights is just as bad as having the fed violate your rights. The only way to interpret it otherwise, given my posting history, is to think of the government as the end-all and be-all of society, and the only question is which layer of government should have complete rule. I say that the people have rights that no layer of government should infringe. It is so simple only a fascist could fail to understand.

No, that would make you an anarchist which you claim you're not.

Saying that people have rights that the government should infringe does not make one an anarchist. I suppose if you think government is supreme in everything like some fascist government you might feel otherwise.

Goalpost shifting. You called it illegal in the other thread.
"You are a fascist. You are a racist. You are a Nazi."

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Saying that people have rights that the government should infringe does not make one an anarchist. I suppose if you think government is supreme in everything like some fascist government you might feel otherwise.

Goalpost shifting. You called it illegal in the other thread.

Yep, I call violating peoples rights illegal. If you believe that rights are supposed to be supreme, instead of your belief that the government is to be supreme, you see that it isn't goalpost shifting.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Saying that people have rights that the government should infringe does not make one an anarchist. I suppose if you think government is supreme in everything like some fascist government you might feel otherwise.

Goalpost shifting. You called it illegal in the other thread.

Yep, I call violating peoples rights illegal. If you believe that rights are supposed to be supreme, instead of your belief that the government is to be supreme, you see that it isn't goalpost shifting.

What you want things to be is not necessarily what the law is.
"You are a fascist. You are a racist. You are a Nazi."

 

[Elixir]

I call violating peoples rights illegal...
Saying that people have rights that the government should infringe does not make one an anarchist. I suppose if you think government is supreme in everything like some fascist government you might feel otherwise.

Leopards don't change their spots, and governments "infringe" on some people. That's unavoidable because there is little agreement about what constitutes a "right", courts change their minds, and "rights" come and go. So getting rid of "infringements" necessarily means getting rid of government.
You are an anarchist.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Leopards don't change their spots, and governments "infringe" on some people. That's unavoidable because there is little agreement about what constitutes a "right", courts change their minds, and "rights" come and go. So getting rid of "infringements" necessarily means getting rid of government.
You are an anarchist.

So if you believe in inalienable rights that the government shall not infringe (not "isn't capable" but "shouldn't") and if you believe government are established in order to protect those rights, then you believe in no government at all and are an anarchist.

An interesting definition. It does mean that the one person on this board who (rather laughably) calls himself an anarchist is anything but.

 

[Elixir]

Leopards don't change their spots, and governments "infringe" on some people. That's unavoidable because there is little agreement about what constitutes a "right", courts change their minds, and "rights" come and go. So getting rid of "infringements" necessarily means getting rid of government.
You are an anarchist.

So if you believe in inalienable rights that the government shall not infringe (not "isn't capable" but "shouldn't") and if you believe government are established in order to protect those rights, then you believe in no government at all and are an anarchist.

An interesting definition. It does mean that the one person on this board who (rather laughably) calls himself an anarchist is anything but.

I'm saying that "should" is irrelevant. "Can" is operative. If you have a plan to make it such that Government can only do what it "should", please put it forth. And be sure to let us know who determines the "shouldness" of government actions.

Right now we have a system that dictates that we tolerate a sociopathic orange lying shitgibbon for President, so believe me I am open to suggestions.