SalinasSpartan

If we are just talking accomplishments at SJSU I’d put Fales over Garcia.

I don’t think it has a definition among libertarians, excuse me, “minarchists”. It’s just a slogan. What they actually want is the exact governmental framework provided by the U.S. Constitution, but “less government” regarding certain specific issues, and more government regarding other specific issues. That’s why specific and practical questions are answered with a bunch of general bullshit that doesn’t actually explain anything. It’s just a bunch of slogans that sound agreeable in the abstract but are obviously unworkable as a way to structure a society if they are given the slightest bit of scrutiny.

“What am I on about”? I’m asking you honest and specific questions, and you always just respond with these broad ass generic statements. I’ll repeat my specific question that I am “on about”. Then you can run off and pretend not to see it or whatever. If a modern community passes discriminatory laws and some centralized government has the power to come and tell them this democratically passed law cannot be enforced, how is this ACTUALLY a “minarchist” community? And if there is no central government to block enforcement of discriminatory laws…. Then you have discriminatory laws. So how do you have an ACTUAL “minarchist” community without opening the door to legal discrimination?

Dude, YES, discrimination by the government is EXACTLY what I am talking about. When your little “minarchist” community passes laws that discriminate they are either going to stand, which means you have legal discrimination, or the community is going to be barred from enforcing these laws which means you don’t have a “minarchist” society.

Meaning either discrimination is completely legal or the state is powerful enough to enforce anti-discrimination laws, which makes the society not actually “minarchist”.

“Require”? No.

Brief recap:

Well, I appreciate that. I don’t really mind the insults though. If people think I’m a retarded dick that is a bad person, eh, what ya gonna do?

I don’t want @Bob banned, I’ve said that numerous times. I respect him in a narrow sense that that he actually will say stuff people like you and @bornontheblue obviously agree with but are too chicken shit to say yourselves.

Getting lucky that their dad knocked up their mom before housing became less affordable

That, plus it allows people to just react to stuff they agree with and want to post here but are afraid to do it themselves.

States rights means whatever SCOTUS says it does. There is enough material in the Constitution to allow SCOTUS to say damn near everything is an issue for the states, and there’s enough material in the Constitution to say citizens have so many protections that states would have very little power. This is not an objective thing, it all is a matter of how 9 people in robes choose to interpret certain clauses in the Constitution.

No need to be such a sassy little bitch about it, just asking for clarification.

So is your claim that the Fed is not going to touch interest rates SOLELY because they are worried about the perception that the rate increases and decreases are the Fed attempting to influence the election?

So basically you wanted @Bob back so he can post the stuff you like but are too chicken shit to post yourself? Pretty pathetic.

My worldview has made me very left wing as far as my political positions go. As far as what I call myself, I don’t really care enough to come up with some specific name for my ideology, because honestly who gives a shit? I dunno, I’m a voter.

I’ve heard the term radical centrist used before as a way to actually describe real politicians. So while we can quibble over whether “centrists” can be equated with “pragmatists”, the concept of people in the middle being radical is not a new one. Someone that has an ideology that happens to be in between two dominant political parties can still be a radical advocate for that preferred ideology.

Kinda underscores the real purpose of these laws being to control women rather than about whatever conservatives claim it’s about. Good example of this is @modestobulldog being “pro-life”, but also pro-discharge child support debts in bankruptcy. Force the woman to give birth, but if the dad can get his child support discharged by filing for bankruptcy, well thems the breaks!

Yup. Women’s health exceptions are MUCH better than “life of the mother” ones and give doctors the ability to do their job without being second guessed as much by medical laypeople as to whether the mother’s life was “really” in danger.

Sure, probably. But a lot of people in Arizona will be negatively affected by this in the meantime.

Why are you so triggered by people disliking @Jackrabbit?

The exceptions exist largely on paper only. A woman cannot take a blood test and test positive for “this pregnancy is putting the life of the mother in danger”. The call is a subjective one. And when you have a legal climate so hostile to abortion that doctors feel their livelihood or even freedom is at risk if they perform an abortion they are just not going to be willing to roll the dice that some medical layperson that happens to be a lawyer at the DA’s office will accept their medical justification for performing an abortion. So in most cases, the doctor just won’t perform the abortion. But I know you are just going to read this and continue to play dumb, so whatever.