Cali bans travel to other states

[Smokeyman]

I didn't call any one specific poster on here 'conservative.' I'm mocking your arguments about intolerance, that's all.

All the insults are mere reflections of stuff yall have already said in this thread (looney liberals etc) I shoulda used some blue font. Sue me.

My argument is still valid. I noticed no one tried to touch that...

 

[kiddiedoc]

My argument is still valid.

That Americans shouldn't have the right to religious beliefs or convictions? We ought to all be thankful that our Forefathers didn't ascribe to such narrow-minded thinking.

 

[n_huffhines]

Lol @ Huff = conservative.

Fail.

Logic fail, too.

Just because you don't want the government to ban an activity does not mean you tolerate it or endorse it. I will ****ing smear a company that mistreats gays.

 

[McDad]

Logic fail, too.

Just because you don't want the government to ban an activity does not mean you are tolerate it or endorse it. I will ****ing smear a company that mistreats gays.

You won't do nothin'. All talk. Skeert

 

[n_huffhines]

I didn't call any one specific poster on here 'conservative.' I'm mocking your arguments about intolerance, that's all.

All the insults are mere reflections of stuff yall have already said in this thread (looney liberals etc) I shoulda used some blue font. Sue me.

My argument is still valid. I noticed no one tried to touch that...

You said "typical conservative" to me in reply to my post.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

I didn't call any one specific poster on here 'conservative.' I'm mocking your arguments about intolerance, that's all.

All the insults are mere reflections of stuff yall have already said in this thread (looney liberals etc) I shoulda used some blue font. Sue me.

My argument is still valid. I noticed no one tried to touch that...

Don't worry you were noticed. Gold star!!

jK.

 

[n_huffhines]

You won't do nothin'. All talk. Skeert

I do eat at Chick-Fil-A, but so does my gay sister. Tasty hate chicken!

 

[McDad]

I didn't call any one specific poster on here 'conservative.'

Originally Posted by n_huffhines:
You seem.....tolerant

"You seem...illiterate. Ya didn't read any of the links I posted yeah? Typical conservative." -Smokeyman

That's the fastest denial since Peter's.

 

[McDad]

I do eat at Chick-Fil-A, but so does my gay sister. Tasty hate chicken!

Lol...hate chicken.

Side bar: I've talked to corporate several times about a buffalo sandwich, strips, and adding wings. If the new bbq sammich does well (it's delicious btw) CFA is step closer to adding them.

Gays, straights can both get behind this cause.

 

[Smokeyman]

You said "typical conservative" to me in reply to my post.

I'm sorry, my mistake. I shoulda put it in quotes. It was meant as a mockery of 'typical libtard'. I got off on a rant.

My beef is the argument that conservatives make ALL the time about liberals being intolerant of their intolerance. I then linked several articles explaining why that's bs logically speaking. Im gonna say it one more time and I'm done bc I got sh8t to do today: You cannot tolerate someone else's intolerance, the definition of the word ceases to exist at that point.

Ok, Im done.

 

[theFallGuy]

I didn't call any one specific poster on here 'conservative.' I'm mocking your arguments about intolerance, that's all.

All the insults are mere reflections of stuff yall have already said in this thread (looney liberals etc) I shoulda used some blue font. Sue me.

My argument is still valid. I noticed no one tried to touch that...

I think it's safe to say your mocking failed pretty miserably.

 

[volinbham]

You seem...illiterate. Ya didn't read any of the links I posted yeah? Typical conservative. Readin' is for nerds amirite?

And, yes, if you mean I don't tolerate intolerance, then you are right.

The fundamental issue is defining intolerance.

For example, one might think we should stop illegal immigration. Is that an intolerant viewpoint? Hardly, it is a policy decision and multiple positions could exist that are not intolerant.

However, we've seen plenty of examples where people who disagree with preventing illegal immigration think it's a "hateful" position to take and thus feel justified in demonizing people who hold the position under the guise of "not tolerating intolerance".

The crux of the issue is defining what intolerance is.

 

[volfanhill]

The fundamental issue is defining intolerance.

For example, one might think we should stop illegal immigration. Is that an intolerant viewpoint? Hardly, it is a policy decision and multiple positions could exist that are not intolerant.

However, we've seen plenty of examples where people who disagree with preventing illegal immigration think it's a "hateful" position to take and thus feel justified in demonizing people who hold the position under the guise of "not tolerating intolerance".

The crux of the issue is defining what intolerance is.

Well said

 

[n_huffhines]

I'm sorry, my mistake. I shoulda put it in quotes. It was meant as a mockery of 'typical libtard'. I got off on a rant.

My beef is the argument that conservatives make ALL the time about liberals being intolerant of their intolerance. I then linked several articles explaining why that's bs logically speaking. Im gonna say it one more time and I'm done bc I got sh8t to do today: You cannot tolerate someone else's intolerance, the definition of the word ceases to exist at that point.

Ok, Im done.

What you don't understand is that California is not being intolerant of intolerance. California is being intolerant of the other state governments' reactions to intolerance.

 

[CABVOL]

The fundamental issue is defining intolerance.

For example, one might think we should stop illegal immigration. Is that an intolerant viewpoint? Hardly, it is a policy decision and multiple positions could exist that are not intolerant.

However, we've seen plenty of examples where people who disagree with preventing illegal immigration think it's a "hateful" position to take and thus feel justified in demonizing people who hold the position under the guise of "not tolerating intolerance".

The crux of the issue is defining what intolerance is.

Intolerance = "If you don't believe as I do..."

 

[Orange_Crush]

I love this: California is not going to subsidize travel to backward states run by old well-to-do religious white men who want to do nothing but pass laws that benefit well-to-do religious folks and well-connected companies that take advantage of people. They are going to reduce contact with yahoo states that pass laws harmful to the poor, to gays, to workers generally, to women. But if you're a religious white man who owns a company that pollutes the environment and doesn't pay workers a decent wage and wants to offer insurance that won't cover maternity care or birth control pills, why, Kentucky and Kansas and Tennessee and Texas and Alabama are the places to be!

Well, bye.

 

[CMcEver]

I like the part that makes the travel permissible if it involves some sort of government grant. "We have principals until it affects our free cash".

Sounds like they just don't want their state's money going to those states, in order to influence legislation at the state level, rather than the federal level. If it is a grant, it isn't their state's money, so I don't have an issue with that. Now, if it was a true travel ban, I'd probably raise issue with it, but eh, if they feel that way, then why not, it's their state's money.
In fact, even if I'm not an advocate for this particular cause, I actually think this model is a great idea. Instead of legislation at the federal level, states could use a similar model to influence adoption of legislation/ideals in other states, without actually forcing that state or the nation to adopt it.
I'm actually a big believer in state's rights, and if we did more at the state level, rather than the federal, we could see real-life examples of the successes(or lack thereof) of policies and laws in 50 different states to draw real-life data from, to make decisions, rather than fly by the seat of our pants to insist something works based solely off theoretical concepts. I also think, it is a shame, in this day and age, people are not applying our technological advances to make decisions based on facts and figures we have readily available.

 

[Orange_Crush]

That's the fastest denial since Peter's.

It's all the chicken talk.

 

[Grand Vol]

I do eat at Chick-Fil-A, but so does my gay sister. Tasty hate chicken!

Does bring up a good point. Say the Chik-fil-A Peach Bowl ends up with a Cali team as part of the playoffs. Will California allow their team to play in a playoff bid for that dastardly company?

(I did lol at "hate chicken")

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm sorry, my mistake. I shoulda put it in quotes. It was meant as a mockery of 'typical libtard'. I got off on a rant.

My beef is the argument that conservatives make ALL the time about liberals being intolerant of their intolerance. I then linked several articles explaining why that's bs logically speaking. Im gonna say it one more time and I'm done bc I got sh8t to do today: You cannot tolerate someone else's intolerance, the definition of the word ceases to exist at that point.

Ok, Im done.

And yet, once you've refused to tolerate someone, you've literally, by definition, become intolerant. lol

The fact that you think you can quote articles and escape that paradox is laughable.

I'm decent at logic. If you'll hang around, we can swap some critical thinking and I'll debate you on the subject.

That sound OK with you?

 

[Grand Vol]

Try again.

He is right.

You are a nerd, Huff.

 

[CABVOL]

And yet, once you've refused to tolerate someone, you've literally, by definition, become intolerant. lol

The fact that you think you can quote articles and escape that paradox is laughable.

I'm decent at logic. If you'll hang around, we can swap some critical thinking and I'll debate you on the subject.

That sound OK with you?

 

[AM64]

My understanding is that if a contract was signed before 2017, teams can travel. UCLA has a football game in Memphis this fall which will go on.

Stupid rule. I am sure that every state/county/city has some law that some would find questionable. I wonder if California has ever looked at its own laws.

Hope USC is looking forward to the Flower City Burbank Bowl.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

The fundamental issue is defining intolerance.

For example, one might think we should stop illegal immigration. Is that an intolerant viewpoint? Hardly, it is a policy decision and multiple positions could exist that are not intolerant.

However, we've seen plenty of examples where people who disagree with preventing illegal immigration think it's a "hateful" position to take and thus feel justified in demonizing people who hold the position under the guise of "not tolerating intolerance".

The crux of the issue is defining what intolerance is.

The fallacy is assuming that your position is the right position 100% of the time.

 

[AM64]

Any reason used to avoid traveling to or thru bama works for me.

AL does need to divert some money from football to roads - that's for sure.