Speaking of local versus federal control

[Mike Gaskey]

this is an interesting article[^] regarding states' rights (US of A) versus the dictates of the Federal Government. Of interest is that it is a Democratic governor that signed the bill into law, effectively challenging the Fed to take action on gun rights / states' rights issue.

Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.

[Ilion]

We'll that know a State is serious about its sovreignty when it exercises eminent domain against the (generally) largest landowner within its jurisdiction: that is, the feds.

[Oakman]

Stan will be disappointed. This is not part of his plan! I on the other hand think it's a great idea. Next up - if the feds won't protect the borders, then maybe the states will. . .except for California.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

[Rob Graham]

Ilíon wrote:

a State is serious about its sovreignty when it exercises eminent domain against the (generally) largest landowner within its jurisdiction

Well, in Montana, they'd have to take on Ted Turner...Will Hanoi Jane come to the rescue?

[Ilion]

Rob Graham wrote:

Well, in Montana, they'd have to take on Ted Turner

Surely, Ted Turner[^] is not the largest land-owner in Montana.

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Stan will be disappointed. This is not part of his plan!

How so? I fully support it.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.