Arkansas courts cannot strike down laws outside arkansas anymore than the california supreme court can strike down south carolinas bathroom law.
But the supreme court is a court: it cannot rule on anything unless somebody brings a case. It hasnt ruled on this case because the state never appealed the arkansas decision. The supreme court has no right to rule on any law that unless somebody brings a case challenging it. It is a court not a legislature.
Since my post does not include the word "ever" (in the direct thread) I do not know which use in which comment you refer to and cannot clarify the contextual meaning as I do not know what the context was.
The point if my post is that if you wage a war on women you cannot complain about being called out for it. And since absolutely every item on that list is the fundamental right of ownership over your own body - no they are not negotiable. No way you would support any policy as invasive into a man's life as these are for women so you cannot support them and claim not to be an autocratic dictator.
Your logic is about on par with taking people's stuff and complaining for being called a thief.
It has only been found unconstiutional in Arkansas. It remains law in the other 49 states and all territories. Had the federal supreme court ruled it would be different but they have not and since the law is unenforced probably never will because nobody has standing to bring a case.
You didnt understand the first part either or you would not have written such drivel in response.
Let me try again: Swedish people may pay a higher taxrate than you but still have more money to spend than you do. Those taxes save them far more money than it costs. Its like if you buy stock in a company and the stock price goes up. You may have spent money before but you have more than you would have had if you did not spend it.
Dude, read what these people actually did. This would be just as illegal in the USA and the supreme court confirmed as much more than a century ago. This is classic "shout fire in a crowded theaterhouse" stuff that has never been considered legitimate speech anywhere. Your rights end where mine begins, and your right to free speech does not include inciting a panicked riot that could get my toddler trampled to death, nor has it ever included that and nor will or should it.
Their own family benefits from more money than yours does. That was literally the point. They have more money than you. Because you have to buy everything they buy for those taxes and you pay more than they do for them.
I did. I even mentioned those facts in another comment. None of it changes anything. A law doesnt cease to be a law because it is not enforced. Only an idiot would claim this law has not had a stiffling effect just by existing.
>Now wait a minute - don't these "progressive" societies get that way precisely by forcing the rich to transfer more wealth to the poor?
No. Well they GET that way through subsidies but they do not STAY that way through subsidies. See in economics there is something called the poverty-escape line. The exact figure is not a constant, it depends on the economy as a whole and the stability of society and the things you get free from taxpayers etc. etc. but basically there is a line of income below which it is just about mathematically impossible to escape from poverty or provide and escape for your children. Above that line the escape becomes possible and the further above it you go, the easier it becomes, until you reach the point where you enter the middle class (again something that can only be defined for a specific country in a specific time). What progressive countries do with subsidies is to lower the poverty-escape line AND raise incomes of the poorest above it, so very soon everybody with the talent to escape poverty also has the MEANS to escape poverty and move into the middle class where they join the group of subsidizers. Only a tiny fraction remain in poverty (those who genuinely lack the capacity to ever do more than sweep a floor and such) and subsidizing them to at least a decent life is remarkably cheap because there are very little of them.
The line is, at it's most basic, defined as the minimum cost to have three healthy meals a day, a decent roof over your head, transport and other work costs covered + 10%. Anthing lower than the part before the + and you are actually working at a loss, people like that will be die in poverty and so will their kids. Equal them and you just survive, it's impossible to make anything better. Add 10% and you can save money, invest money, protect yourself against unexpected events, get a better education (or at least get one for your kids). In short, with time and effort it becomes possible to join the middle class. The higher the plus becomes, the quicker and easier you can transition.
So if you reduce the costs part (say by subsidizing cheap, reliable public transport, or lots of paid parental leave so you don't spend a fortune on childcare) while increasing the income part (with grants) - then a lot more people are able to stop being poor and lift themselves up into the middle class. Once you get a middle class job, you don't keep getting subsidies, you subsidize others. That's when the price drops.
That said, Europeans have learned a lesson that Americans haven't. Universal plans are better than means-tested plans. Means-tested sound more just to conservatives but they come with several caveats. Firstly they cost more - this seems counter-intuitive but the burocratic structures you need to do the means-testing almost always costs more than it would cost to just give the thing to everybody and they are hugely invasive of privacy which makes them very anti-liberty. Secondly, they become hard to justify - people selfishly complain about subsidising others and fail to see the benefits of living in a society where people do not starve very often. That problem also goes away when you make them universal. Hardly anybody complains about a welfare program they benefit from themselves - and in fact this is the MORE just version. Hillary and Bernie had a big debate about this issue where she said something like "I don't want to give free college to Donald Trump's kids" - but Bernie is right, the best way to stop Donald Trump's kids from bribing politicians to take free college away from everybody is to let them have it too. That's a key difference between US and European approaches to the welfare state and one of the major reasons why welfare is NOT a constant political hot potato in Europe like it is in the US. Because in Europe almost all welfare programs are universal while in the US it's almost always means-tested.
Which is fine since they will still get to have more money at the end of the month than the people who pay less taxes, and that money will buy more things and their general quality of life will still be significantly higher than yours.
>Half of your combined salary will go on childcare.
You're assuming GP wants children. You are also assuming that a wealthier household is better than one in which all the participants are happy and get a sense of accomplishment from a career. Even if we assume you're right on the former, you are utterly wrong on the latter. It's better to lose half your combined income and have a happy wife than to come home each night to one who hates her life because (being human) she will invariably grow to resent you for it - and I won't blame her when she does.
I'm sorry - but after 8 years of an obstructionist congress preventing the president from doing a single thing he wanted to do - nothing that happened during his term gets to be blamed on him. You can't blame shit that was done on the person who wasn't allowed to do anything.
What Obama WANTED to do may have been good or bad, we'll probably not agree on that, but what he actually DID was sit in his office banging his head on his desk in quiet desperation as republicans rejected even proposals they themselves CHAMPIONED a few years earlier as soon as the dark guy suggested actually doing them.
Turkey, Indonesia, India, Pakistan... actually MOST countries with Muslim majorities have fairly good track records on human rights (at least, no worst than America). The only ones where this kind of terrible shit happens is where theocrats got themselves made government, when theocrats make the law it is always only a matter of time before only the crazy theocrats get to make the laws.
And historically - everytime theocrats got into power in the Christian west, the outcome was exactly the same. How short our memories are that we think it's a particularly Islamic syndrome, nah, it's just been a while since anybody actually let Christian theocrats have real power, when they did - they were just as bad and if they were to gain it tomorrow they would be just as bad again.
Actually - that sounded mostly like Orwell. It could have come straight out of "The theory and practice of oligarchical collectivism" - which in case you were wondering was a book within the book 1984 about what makes autocratic communism fail to be socialism and in fact turn into a complete disaster.
Actually, you should just read 1984. Then learn that Orwel hated capitalists even MORE than he hated communists, and that he actually fought for the anarcho-socialists in the Spanish revolution - and then read the book again, and you may even understand it.
The point of 1984 is that what the Soviet Union turned into - was never a consequence of it's economic system, but of the rise of absolute power and the surveillance capabilities to enforce that power. His point was that a capitalist Soviet Union would look IDENTICAL to how the communist one looked.
He was right about that. And the USA is very rapidly turning into that vision.
There is just one thing he didn't realize - because he lived in a time when that didn't seem possible anymore - which is that government and corporations would be complicit in the enslavement of man, not one or the other, not fighting each other over power, but the combination of both as an alliance of tyranny. This happened in the early past, the three first corporations to ever exist also had the three biggest armies in the world at the time and actually ruled (as the official governments) more than two thirds of the world between them, with the blessings and support of their home governments. By the 20th century, it looked like corporations would never be THAT powerful again. Today, that exact same pattern is emerging once again.
>The difference is that they're not hunting down people who are topless in pictures posted online and seek them out and arrest them.
So the difference is not a difference. Be consistent. Everybody here would reject a patent when it just "ancient idea 'on a computer'" - well it's not a difference just because you don't punish people who do it on a computer but DO punish them in the streets.
Comparing educated extrapolations of the most predictable things in the world with predictions of truly random events. I think you judt committed the most egregious false equivalency fallacy since Aristotle invented the concept of fallacies.
>But in iran this idea is codified in the legal system, its not a fringe idea expressed by a weirdo on an internet forum.
Considering how frequently it is expressed by lawyers in court defenses (all of them), and how often it succeeds (most of the time) there is nothing fringe about it in the USA either and for all matters of practicality it IS enshrined in law. If you want to actually be different: make it a law that you CANNOT ask the accuser in a rape case what she was wearing because it cannot EVER be relevant and the mere question is prejudicing the jury.
>The only country that says its citizens are entitled to disagree with the government,
You are right on every part except this one - this is true in many countries and hell the USA wasn't even the first. You could argue they were the first in the modern world but only by less than 10 years since the French republic after the revolution was built on the same principles and then rapidly exported it across all Europe.
>Liberals will call every Republican sexist, no matter fucking what they do
That's easy to fix: support paid family leave, childcare assistance, guaranteed maternity leave, promise to leave abortion rights untouched and fight AGAINST state governments that try to restrict it, stick to the small government thing enough to get the fuck out of women's wombs entirely in fact - leave that between her and her doctor, and stop fighting against letting women have ready access to birth control, make ending rape culture a goal - and that includes ensuring every rapist gets the punishment he deserves and actually BAN victim blaming as an attempted defense in court.
Republicans have been consistently on the wrong side of every one of these issues and every now and then they go even further and pull a Todd Aiken on top of it. Those things are what is described as the war on women. You will NEVER escape that accusation unless you change on ALL those things. You cannot stop being accused of a war on women unless you stop FIGHTING one.
I'm not sure about Hitler - but comparing him to Verwoerd is a spot-on accurate comparison - except that the latter was a LOT more eloquent.
The thing is - as somebody who lived under the only fascist government to ever rule a country for a significant period WITHOUT being simultaneously at war with major powers... I heard every variation of fascist rhetoric. From the absolute hatred of communism to blaming other races for your hardships, blaming liberals for every evil in the world and filling people with fear of the brown-boogeyman under the bed and the red boogeyman next door.
Trump isn't LIKE the fascists I lived under, he IS them. If he had run in a South African election in 1976 it would have been a fucking landslide victory for him.
Ahem, Ahem, a-fucking-hem: you bloody well DO ban political parties in the USA and have SPECIFICALLY banned communist parties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The law has never been enforced, and was found unconstitutional by one state supreme court (but because nobody appealed the finding it has never been nationally decided by the federal supreme court) but the law DOES exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Arkansas courts cannot strike down laws outside arkansas anymore than the california supreme court can strike down south carolinas bathroom law.
But the supreme court is a court: it cannot rule on anything unless somebody brings a case. It hasnt ruled on this case because the state never appealed the arkansas decision. The supreme court has no right to rule on any law that unless somebody brings a case challenging it. It is a court not a legislature.
Since my post does not include the word "ever" (in the direct thread) I do not know which use in which comment you refer to and cannot clarify the contextual meaning as I do not know what the context was.
It is still the law. Right now. In the present tense.
The point if my post is that if you wage a war on women you cannot complain about being called out for it.
And since absolutely every item on that list is the fundamental right of ownership over your own body - no they are not negotiable. No way you would support any policy as invasive into a man's life as these are for women so you cannot support them and claim not to be an autocratic dictator.
Your logic is about on par with taking people's stuff and complaining for being called a thief.
It has only been found unconstiutional in Arkansas. It remains law in the other 49 states and all territories.
Had the federal supreme court ruled it would be different but they have not and since the law is unenforced probably never will because nobody has standing to bring a case.
You didnt understand the first part either or you would not have written such drivel in response.
Let me try again: Swedish people may pay a higher taxrate than you but still have more money to spend than you do. Those taxes save them far more money than it costs. Its like if you buy stock in a company and the stock price goes up. You may have spent money before but you have more than you would have had if you did not spend it.
Dude, read what these people actually did. This would be just as illegal in the USA and the supreme court confirmed as much more than a century ago. This is classic "shout fire in a crowded theaterhouse" stuff that has never been considered legitimate speech anywhere.
Your rights end where mine begins, and your right to free speech does not include inciting a panicked riot that could get my toddler trampled to death, nor has it ever included that and nor will or should it.
Their own family benefits from more money than yours does. That was literally the point. They have more money than you. Because you have to buy everything they buy for those taxes and you pay more than they do for them.
I did. I even mentioned those facts in another comment. None of it changes anything. A law doesnt cease to be a law because it is not enforced.
Only an idiot would claim this law has not had a stiffling effect just by existing.
>Now wait a minute - don't these "progressive" societies get that way precisely by forcing the rich to transfer more wealth to the poor?
No. Well they GET that way through subsidies but they do not STAY that way through subsidies. See in economics there is something called the poverty-escape line. The exact figure is not a constant, it depends on the economy as a whole and the stability of society and the things you get free from taxpayers etc. etc. but basically there is a line of income below which it is just about mathematically impossible to escape from poverty or provide and escape for your children. Above that line the escape becomes possible and the further above it you go, the easier it becomes, until you reach the point where you enter the middle class (again something that can only be defined for a specific country in a specific time).
What progressive countries do with subsidies is to lower the poverty-escape line AND raise incomes of the poorest above it, so very soon everybody with the talent to escape poverty also has the MEANS to escape poverty and move into the middle class where they join the group of subsidizers. Only a tiny fraction remain in poverty (those who genuinely lack the capacity to ever do more than sweep a floor and such) and subsidizing them to at least a decent life is remarkably cheap because there are very little of them.
The line is, at it's most basic, defined as the minimum cost to have three healthy meals a day, a decent roof over your head, transport and other work costs covered + 10%.
Anthing lower than the part before the + and you are actually working at a loss, people like that will be die in poverty and so will their kids. Equal them and you just survive, it's impossible to make anything better. Add 10% and you can save money, invest money, protect yourself against unexpected events, get a better education (or at least get one for your kids). In short, with time and effort it becomes possible to join the middle class. The higher the plus becomes, the quicker and easier you can transition.
So if you reduce the costs part (say by subsidizing cheap, reliable public transport, or lots of paid parental leave so you don't spend a fortune on childcare) while increasing the income part (with grants) - then a lot more people are able to stop being poor and lift themselves up into the middle class. Once you get a middle class job, you don't keep getting subsidies, you subsidize others. That's when the price drops.
That said, Europeans have learned a lesson that Americans haven't. Universal plans are better than means-tested plans. Means-tested sound more just to conservatives but they come with several caveats. Firstly they cost more - this seems counter-intuitive but the burocratic structures you need to do the means-testing almost always costs more than it would cost to just give the thing to everybody and they are hugely invasive of privacy which makes them very anti-liberty. Secondly, they become hard to justify - people selfishly complain about subsidising others and fail to see the benefits of living in a society where people do not starve very often. That problem also goes away when you make them universal. Hardly anybody complains about a welfare program they benefit from themselves - and in fact this is the MORE just version. Hillary and Bernie had a big debate about this issue where she said something like "I don't want to give free college to Donald Trump's kids" - but Bernie is right, the best way to stop Donald Trump's kids from bribing politicians to take free college away from everybody is to let them have it too.
That's a key difference between US and European approaches to the welfare state and one of the major reasons why welfare is NOT a constant political hot potato in Europe like it is in the US. Because in Europe almost all welfare programs are universal while in the US it's almost always means-tested.
Which is fine since they will still get to have more money at the end of the month than the people who pay less taxes, and that money will buy more things and their general quality of life will still be significantly higher than yours.
>Half of your combined salary will go on childcare.
You're assuming GP wants children. You are also assuming that a wealthier household is better than one in which all the participants are happy and get a sense of accomplishment from a career.
Even if we assume you're right on the former, you are utterly wrong on the latter. It's better to lose half your combined income and have a happy wife than to come home each night to one who hates her life because (being human) she will invariably grow to resent you for it - and I won't blame her when she does.
I'm sorry - but after 8 years of an obstructionist congress preventing the president from doing a single thing he wanted to do - nothing that happened during his term gets to be blamed on him. You can't blame shit that was done on the person who wasn't allowed to do anything.
What Obama WANTED to do may have been good or bad, we'll probably not agree on that, but what he actually DID was sit in his office banging his head on his desk in quiet desperation as republicans rejected even proposals they themselves CHAMPIONED a few years earlier as soon as the dark guy suggested actually doing them.
Turkey, Indonesia, India, Pakistan... actually MOST countries with Muslim majorities have fairly good track records on human rights (at least, no worst than America). The only ones where this kind of terrible shit happens is where theocrats got themselves made government, when theocrats make the law it is always only a matter of time before only the crazy theocrats get to make the laws.
And historically - everytime theocrats got into power in the Christian west, the outcome was exactly the same. How short our memories are that we think it's a particularly Islamic syndrome, nah, it's just been a while since anybody actually let Christian theocrats have real power, when they did - they were just as bad and if they were to gain it tomorrow they would be just as bad again.
>for stoning gays
Never heard of gaybashing ? It is STILL a common practice.
Actually - that sounded mostly like Orwell. It could have come straight out of "The theory and practice of oligarchical collectivism" - which in case you were wondering was a book within the book 1984 about what makes autocratic communism fail to be socialism and in fact turn into a complete disaster.
Actually, you should just read 1984. Then learn that Orwel hated capitalists even MORE than he hated communists, and that he actually fought for the anarcho-socialists in the Spanish revolution - and then read the book again, and you may even understand it.
The point of 1984 is that what the Soviet Union turned into - was never a consequence of it's economic system, but of the rise of absolute power and the surveillance capabilities to enforce that power. His point was that a capitalist Soviet Union would look IDENTICAL to how the communist one looked.
He was right about that. And the USA is very rapidly turning into that vision.
There is just one thing he didn't realize - because he lived in a time when that didn't seem possible anymore - which is that government and corporations would be complicit in the enslavement of man, not one or the other, not fighting each other over power, but the combination of both as an alliance of tyranny. This happened in the early past, the three first corporations to ever exist also had the three biggest armies in the world at the time and actually ruled (as the official governments) more than two thirds of the world between them, with the blessings and support of their home governments. By the 20th century, it looked like corporations would never be THAT powerful again. Today, that exact same pattern is emerging once again.
>The difference is that they're not hunting down people who are topless in pictures posted online and seek them out and arrest them.
So the difference is not a difference. Be consistent. Everybody here would reject a patent when it just "ancient idea 'on a computer'" - well it's not a difference just because you don't punish people who do it on a computer but DO punish them in the streets.
Comparing educated extrapolations of the most predictable things in the world with predictions of truly random events.
I think you judt committed the most egregious false equivalency fallacy since Aristotle invented the concept of fallacies.
>Insulting a woman doesn't make you a woman hater.
If the insult is based on an innate experience of womenhood then yes, that's exactly what it makes you.
>But in iran this idea is codified in the legal system, its not a fringe idea expressed by a weirdo on an internet forum.
Considering how frequently it is expressed by lawyers in court defenses (all of them), and how often it succeeds (most of the time) there is nothing fringe about it in the USA either and for all matters of practicality it IS enshrined in law. If you want to actually be different: make it a law that you CANNOT ask the accuser in a rape case what she was wearing because it cannot EVER be relevant and the mere question is prejudicing the jury.
>The only country that says its citizens are entitled to disagree with the government,
You are right on every part except this one - this is true in many countries and hell the USA wasn't even the first. You could argue they were the first in the modern world but only by less than 10 years since the French republic after the revolution was built on the same principles and then rapidly exported it across all Europe.
>Liberals will call every Republican sexist, no matter fucking what they do
That's easy to fix: support paid family leave, childcare assistance, guaranteed maternity leave, promise to leave abortion rights untouched and fight AGAINST state governments that try to restrict it, stick to the small government thing enough to get the fuck out of women's wombs entirely in fact - leave that between her and her doctor, and stop fighting against letting women have ready access to birth control, make ending rape culture a goal - and that includes ensuring every rapist gets the punishment he deserves and actually BAN victim blaming as an attempted defense in court.
Republicans have been consistently on the wrong side of every one of these issues and every now and then they go even further and pull a Todd Aiken on top of it. Those things are what is described as the war on women. You will NEVER escape that accusation unless you change on ALL those things. You cannot stop being accused of a war on women unless you stop FIGHTING one.
You're forgetting three rather important little words: Nuclear Launch Codes.
And you want to give them to somebody with all the tact, social grace and diplomacy of a hungry crocodile in a penguin-tank.
I'm not sure about Hitler - but comparing him to Verwoerd is a spot-on accurate comparison - except that the latter was a LOT more eloquent.
The thing is - as somebody who lived under the only fascist government to ever rule a country for a significant period WITHOUT being simultaneously at war with major powers... I heard every variation of fascist rhetoric. From the absolute hatred of communism to blaming other races for your hardships, blaming liberals for every evil in the world and filling people with fear of the brown-boogeyman under the bed and the red boogeyman next door.
Trump isn't LIKE the fascists I lived under, he IS them. If he had run in a South African election in 1976 it would have been a fucking landslide victory for him.
Ahem, Ahem, a-fucking-hem: you bloody well DO ban political parties in the USA and have SPECIFICALLY banned communist parties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The law has never been enforced, and was found unconstitutional by one state supreme court (but because nobody appealed the finding it has never been nationally decided by the federal supreme court) but the law DOES exist.