Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
They didn't actually do anything yet, it's just a bill, not a law. Also, it's irrelevant, because if they really wanted to pass a bill banning stuff, they would simply incorporate text to repeal the law banning them from banning stuff. I dunno about Inception; I never watched it, but it is definitely somewhat recursive.
I haven't read the particulars of the Mississippi bill, nor do I want to, but in general any law banning other laws that haven't even happened yet is roughly equivalent, from the standpoint of legal soundness, to declaring pink elephants illegal.
edited 14th Mar '13 6:59:36 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Painting Elephants Pink should be illegal on Animal Cruelty, if not Decency grounds...
edited 14th Mar '13 7:27:02 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnWhy bother with sarcasm mode when politicians will agree with you?
Here is some hopeful news: this article (titled "Why Obama (And Any President) Fails To Meet Expectations")
has been in the top-viewed political news section of NPR for two days now. Considering that it is just a news article and not a radio piece, that must mean it has been unusually popular and hopefully people will understand/remember its point.
I'm not sure what that has to do with American politics, but it may interest you to know that, when he was a cleric in Buenos Aires (ie, up until yesterday evening), he was famous for his austerity, eating in food kitchens for the poor, living in a very modest house, and using public transport for his official business.
There are some very good reasons to be wary of this new pope, but that particular hypocrisy is not one of them.
edited 14th Mar '13 11:45:45 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiIn Buenos Aires he apparently didn't live in the doubtless opulent palace that was the residence of the Cardinal. He also refused the limousine that would have been provided for him. Instead, he used public transportation, lived in a small apartment and also cooked his own meals.
Ninja'd.
Granted, that he didn't live in a palace in Argentina doesn't mean that it's not silly for him to live in a palace in Rome while campaigning to get rid of poverty.
But this does seem quite off-topic.
edited 14th Mar '13 11:47:43 AM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.It's not just the television. Bloomberg also created his own "Super-PAC"
with the intention of spreading his views by dumping money into the campaigns of those he feels are like-minded.
I'd think that the Mississippi law is trying to mute an "outside influence" in their local affairs. Bloomberg is, after all, going against wide public opinion with that particular law.
Then again, Mississippi and a lot of other states have more to worry about, and while it seems silly now, maybe it's right to cut out that argument before it ever comes up in their state.
edited 14th Mar '13 12:02:41 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!We should ask Mississippi if they plan to reject all outside interference in their affairs or just the interference they don't like. Because I'm sure all those transfer payments would be welcome in other states.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
It's called states' rights. It's so that they can determine what they want on their own, even if it means they don't take millions of dollars.
States' Rights, even as a doctrine, has its limits. Supremacy clause and all.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"And which the Supremacy Clause is not unlimited either, bound by it's own rules in the Constitution, which protects States' Rights.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Let us just say that they are copouts. Better to argue the merits of the individual issues than to yell "States' Rights" or "Supremacy Clause" as argument-stoppers. It's equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling.
Edit: Unless, of course, it really is a States' Rights or Supremacy Clause issue, but this is not. It's someone (who happens to be in New York) creating a national lobbying campaign for healthy portion sizes. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution, except perhaps the First Amendment.
edited 14th Mar '13 12:22:48 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That's why they are there. Laws and politics have always been a mire of arguments that run constantly. Things like the Supremacy Clause and States' Rights are there as a cut-off or a cop-out, if you want to call it that.
Mississippi is doing exactly what is within their power to do. No more, no less. You might not agree with it, I don't even think it's necessary, but that's politics for you.
Edit: And it won't be an issue unless Bloomberg or someone else somehow takes a case to the Supreme Court.
edited 14th Mar '13 12:24:33 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Citing States' Rights where there is no Supremacy Clause issue makes you look like you have no better argument and are just whining. Mississippi can of course try to pass any laws it wants that aren't in conflict with the Constitution. Nobody has tried to claim that it cannot do this.
What we are saying is that this bill is both pointless and silly. Pointless, because any lobbying effort to get portion restrictions in Mississippi would axiomatically repeal that law should it exist. Silly, because given the pointlessness of it other than as a symbolic gesture, it makes Mississippi look like a child at the dinner table screaming, "YOU CAN'T MAKE ME EAT VEGETABLES IF I DON'T WANT TO!"
edited 14th Mar '13 12:29:57 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Mississippi did something I like?![[thumb up] [tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_up_emoticon_3268.png)
It was an honor