Blues States banning travel to Indiana is an Act of War

[The2ndAmendment]

[
So you have no answer to how its an 'act of war'. Which is exactly my point. If even you can't articulate how NY refusing to spend public money on travel to Indiana that isn't part of a state duty is an 'act of war', then your argument is already dead.

Are you claiming is an Act of Peace and Goodwill between New York and Indiana?

 

[Skylar]

[
So you have no answer to how its an 'act of war'. Which is exactly my point. If even you can't articulate how NY refusing to spend public money on travel to Indiana that isn't part of a state duty is an 'act of war', then your argument is already dead.

Are you claiming is an Act of Peace and Goodwill between New York and Indiana?

Laughing....so much for your 'act of war'.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

[
So you have no answer to how its an 'act of war'. Which is exactly my point. If even you can't articulate how NY refusing to spend public money on travel to Indiana that isn't part of a state duty is an 'act of war', then your argument is already dead.

Are you claiming is an Act of Peace and Goodwill between New York and Indiana?

Laughing....so much for your 'act of war'.

Are you claiming is an Act of Peace and Goodwill between New York and Indiana?

 

[JakeStarkey]

kiddo, it is certainly not war. You are getting into realm of Edward B and PC now, and that is dark, deep, and doomed.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

kiddo, it is certainly not war. You are getting into realm of Edward B and PC now, and that is dark, deep, and doomed.

Does the United States issue (issued) travel and trade bans on friendly nations?

 

[JakeStarkey]

kiddo, it is certainly not war. You are getting into realm of Edward B and PC now, and that is dark, deep, and doomed.

Does the United States issue (issued) travel and trade bans on friendly nations?

Indiana is not a sovereign nation and was not a member of the original ACC. Ideologically and historically, your analogy falls apart the second you post it.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

kiddo, it is certainly not war. You are getting into realm of Edward B and PC now, and that is dark, deep, and doomed.

Does the United States issue (issued) travel and trade bans on friendly nations?

Indiana is not a sovereign nation and was not a member of the original ACC. Ideologically and historically, your analogy falls apart the second you post it.

We're talking about New York's actions against Indiana, it is not a sovereign nation either, it is part of the Union. Indiana is also a member of the Union.

What? Not a member of the original ACC? Really, what? That makes it OK then? Os it's OK for New York to act as a sovereign nation and commit an Act of War against Indiana, because New York was part of the original ACC?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Son, neither NY or IN are sovereign nations, and issuing travel bans on use of public money is not an act of war. I have given you definitions of Act of War, and none of the links even suggest anything resembling your idea of what war is.

 

[mdk]

I guess we can add "act of war" to long list of things that just ain't what it used to be.

 

[Darkwind]

Travels bans and economic sanctions and trade bans, this was our policy towards Cuba, Iran and many other hostile nations.

Indiana has committed no Act of War against the Blue States, why are the Blue States committing Acts of War against Indiana for how Indiana chooses to govern its own citizenry? This is a one of the States in our Union. These actions are INTENDED and PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be DESIGNED to make INDIANA SUFFER.

If an action with both design and intent to make a state suffer is NOT an Act of War, what is?

Travels bans on States that do not infringe on 1st Amendment Religious Freedom, what's next, trade embargoes and blockades of 2nd Amendment Open Carry States?

Where does this stop?

What is a State of War (according to John Locke)?
John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 3

In My opinion, it is the first salvo of the New American Civil War.

Nope. See, here's the problem: folks under 30 don't have a problem with gays. In fact, you have to go all the way to the 65+ group before you'll find a demo where the majority opposes gay marriage or gay rights. Wars generally aren't fought by seniors. They're fought by young men.

And millenials aren't killing anyone because some geezer doesn't like gay folks. Your 'new american civil war' has plenty of arm chair warriors. But precious few actual soldiers. There's always an excuse why its someone else's responsibility to fight. Always some excuse why the arm chair commando themselves won't actualy fight themselves.

Its a sea of half-assed Jeffersons. And not a Hamilton or Washington among them.

No, you are off base and here is how. I don't have a problem with gays, or any group of people.

UNTIL THEY DEMAND I GIVE UP MY RIGHTS AND VALUES.

The entire issue with Connecticut is their desire to silence religious freedom and they are using the convenient excuse of gays to do this. One of the big reasons this country was founded and we fought a war against England was that the English Monarchy and Parliament demanded that people worship their way, and have the values they said you must have. The right to hold religious views cannot be infringed upon by any government within the territorial borders of the United States. We have codified that right into the very foundational document of our country.

It is one thing for people to disagree with religion and religious beliefs, but a completely different animal when a government sanctions the silencing of the First Amendment. When said government makes policy that they will intentionlly prosecute economic sanctions against another state, that is a civil war. Simply because this is over religious freedom rather than slavery does not make it any less a war.

 

[OKTexas]

Travels bans and economic sanctions and trade bans, this was our policy towards Cuba, Iran and many other hostile nations.

Indiana has committed no Act of War against the Blue States, why are the Blue States committing Acts of War against Indiana for how Indiana chooses to govern its own citizenry? This is a one of the States in our Union. These actions are INTENDED and PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be DESIGNED to make INDIANA SUFFER.

If an action with both design and intent to make a state suffer is NOT an Act of War, what is?

Travels bans on States that do not infringe on 1st Amendment Religious Freedom, what's next, trade embargoes and blockades of 2nd Amendment Open Carry States?

Where does this stop?

What is a State of War (according to John Locke)?
John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 3

CHAP. III.

Of the State of War.

Sec. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

Sec. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

An act of war, probably not, if done by a governmental body of another state, a direct violation of the commerce clause, yep. And Indiana would have cause and a claim against that governmental body. If the loss to Indiana can be quantified then they should pursue a remedy in federal court.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

not an act of war. I have given you definitions of Act of War, and none of the links even suggest anything resembling your idea of what war is.

I am using John Locke's definition. It's a State of Enmity and Destruction. New York has committed an act to destroy Indiana's economy, since it does not agree with how Indiana chooses to govern itself.

Are you claiming that this is an Act of Peace and Goodwill from New York towards Indiana?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is asking your, darkwind or those who think like you, to give up your values or beliefs.

But your values and beliefs in the public commerce cannot prevent others from purchasing the goods and services as they are provided to everyone else.

What would Jesus say? He would, say, "Love your neighbor, sell to him, don;t be stupid."

He would say, "2dA, go take your meds, please."

 

[Darkwind]

I guess I see the problem. When people say war, the left immediately thinks we're talking a 'hot war' with guns and blood...unless its republians and women.....then their made up fantasies become all out aggression against women.

I have to wonder at the sanity of the progressive ideology.

 

[mack20]

I would have answered the poll, but there was no "no, holy shit you're a fucking mess of a human being how do you even function in public" option.

 

[Darkwind]

No one is asking your, darkwind or those who think like you, to give up your values or beliefs.

But your values and beliefs in the public commerce cannot prevent others from purchasing the goods and services as they are provided to everyone else.

What would Jesus say? He would, say, "Love your neighbor, sell to him, don;t be stupid."

You're not very cognizant of the world around you if you think that. When I say to someone, "I will not participate in your lifestyle on religious grounds" and then have to spend time, money, resources and have lies told about Me ruining My reputation, then your nuts if y ou think no one is trying to make Me give up My values and religious freedom.

We even allow conscientious objectors in times of war....but I guess in times of peace, just keep your values locked away and do not display or act upon them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I guess I see the problem. When people say war, the left immediately thinks we're talking a 'hot war' with guns and blood...unless its republians and women.....then their made up fantasies become all out aggression against women.

I have to wonder at the sanity of the progressive ideology.

I see darkwind's problem. His thinking reminds us of a bent over old man moving quickly, like a hare with a handicap. The problem is his thinking is like the hare's movement: wobbly and not straight.

Progressivism is a way of government to use Big Government to make changes politically, governmentally, socially, and culturally. Progressivism comes in liberal, centrist, and conservative wings. darkwind can't recognize that his desire to pass that law in Indiana is far right wing progressivism in action.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is asking your, darkwind or those who think like you, to give up your values or beliefs.

But your values and beliefs in the public commerce cannot prevent others from purchasing the goods and services as they are provided to everyone else.

What would Jesus say? He would, say, "Love your neighbor, sell to him, don;t be stupid."

You're not very cognizant of the world around you if you think that. When I say to someone, "I will not participate in your lifestyle on religious grounds" and then have to spend time, money, resources and have lies told about Me ruining My reputation, then your nuts if y ou think no one is trying to make Me give up My values and religious freedom.

We even allow conscientious objectors in times of war....but I guess in times of peace, just keep your values locked away and do not display or act upon them.

I am well aware that you cannot use your religious belief to refuse goods and services in public that you provide to others. You run a department store, a tire shop, Dairy Freeze, or whatever, if you sell your goods and services to others, you cannot discriminate in violation of the 14th Amendment. There is no question that even this conservative Congress would not uphold the logical and centrist position that the 14th Amendment prevents you little buddy from doing so.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No one is asking your, darkwind or those who think like you, to give up your values or beliefs.

But your values and beliefs in the public commerce cannot prevent others from purchasing the goods and services as they are provided to everyone else.

What would Jesus say? He would, say, "Love your neighbor, sell to him, don;t be stupid."

He would say, "2dA, go take your meds, please."

This is what Jesus said:
Matthew 5:17

“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets.

Now read Leviticus 20:13

 

[theDoctorisIn]

not an act of war. I have given you definitions of Act of War, and none of the links even suggest anything resembling your idea of what war is.

I am using John Locke's definition. It's a State of Enmity and Destruction. New York has committed an act to destroy Indiana's economy, since it does not agree with how Indiana chooses to govern itself.

Are you claiming that this is an Act of Peace and Goodwill from New York towards Indiana?

Time for a logic lesson.

Your argument is a textbook example of a false dichotomy.

There are many actions that are neither "acts of war" nor "acts of peace and goodwill".