Remember: States' rights are bad when it comes to abortion and civil rights, but they're good when it comes to pot. http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019900150_obamapot15m.html?prmid=head_main …
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori States' rights are bad when they result in less individual rights, good when they result in more.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori Same logic applies, but one must also consider the individual right to not get shot.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taradinoc
@taradinoc How does that "right" differ from a baby's "right" not to be aborted? States rights is a system. It's not about specific issues.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori And whether that shift is a good thing depends on the issue. If states want more power so they can restrict rights, it's bad.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taradinoc
@taradinoc Dude, seriously - you don't get to pick whether localized control is good or bad based on whether you like their decisions.4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori Sometimes localized control is good, sometimes it's bad. It's a mistake to generalize about that.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taradinoc
@taradinoc@cmuratori The reality for most people is they cannot pick up and move to another state whose laws they like more. It's just bad.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@nothings @taradinoc It's not really about that, though. I think of it more like fault tolerance, and preventing the accretion of power.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.