Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy. (Politics General)
WatermelonRat 
Assistant
Upload King
@Background Pony #7E57
Your post would be a lot less confusing if you told us what this bill does.
Your post would be a lot less confusing if you told us what this bill does.
Background Pony #B4B3
@Background Pony #7E57
Whoa bro, what happened to State Rights? Do those only matter when it’s conservative states that go against (imagined or not) constitutional points?
Whoa bro, what happened to State Rights? Do those only matter when it’s conservative states that go against (imagined or not) constitutional points?
After all, not only was Newsom elected governor, but he had his position cemented by a recent failed recall attempt. Are you saying the people of California don’t have a right to dictate their own governance? Are you better than them? Why do you love the federal government so much?
Background Pony #7E57
@WatermelonRat
Yes, I meant to embed a link to the Washington Post article showcasing this bill in my post, sorry about that.
Yes, I meant to embed a link to the Washington Post article showcasing this bill in my post, sorry about that.
If you want to see more links than that for proof, just let me know.
Kazapsky 
Five scoops of ice cream
Wow. So large retailers like Walmart will have a marginally smaller heap of money to sleep on, and smaller places will be completely unaffected. Boo fucking hoo.
Background Human 
CHS, Class of 20XX
Only the company or the entrepreneur should have the final say in decision on what they can, will, and should sell to the public—either of their own desire, or via non-governmental public pressure.
Tell me you don’t understand commercial law without telling me you don’t understand commercial law.
Zincy 
In Vino Veritas
Conservatives platforms are always about fear.
Fear of immigrants taking your jobs. Fear of schools teaching about racism.
Fear that the government is “coming after your guns”.
Fear of social change that stops emphasizing white, straight protestants.
Fear that the government is “coming after your guns”.
Fear of social change that stops emphasizing white, straight protestants.
For a political ideology that chants about “not being afraid” they seem to be afraid of a lot.
Ebalosus 
Build commie blocks!
Don’t you just love it when I’m not like the others conservatives, be they never-Trumpers, paleo, alt-right, neoreactionary, and right-“““libertarians””” blindly parrot neoconservative talking points without a hint of irony or self-awareness?
Everything Adam Curtis said in The Power of Nightmares about them is correct; even moreso than ever.
Background Pony #7E57
Wow. So large retailers like Walmart will have a marginally smaller heap of money to sleep on, and smaller places will be completely unaffected. Boo fucking hoo.
Man, that is not even remotely what the problem with this bill is, in the slightest. If you want to understand what I’m actually talking about as to why this new law is bad, go look at my post at the bottom of the previous page (hit: it’s bad because it is legislation being enacted by a state government that is in explicit and direct violation of one of the first ten amendments to the Constitution).
@Background Pony #7E57
Whoa bro, what happened to State Rights?
States (or the federal government, for that matter) do not have any right to pass laws that fly directly in the face of any one the first ten amendments (i.e., the Bill of Rights) of the U.S. Constitution. Sorry to burst your bubble there, mate, but this is an in indisputable aspect of U.S. national law that is simply not up for debate—not then, not now, not ever.
Do those only matter when it’s conservative states that go against (imagined or not) constitutional points?
At no point did I ever even say or actually imply that, so go ahead and keep entertaining that idea to yourself until one day, you eventually believe that this scenario is both real and happening as we speak, unironically.
Also, I really do love how you automatically assumed that I’m a conservative, when in reality, I am actually not, and just LOL at your hypothesised notion that “neither local, state or federal governments have any right to pass or enact any legislation that is in explicit violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution” is in any way an ’“imagined” constitutional point”, when freedom of expression being protected from any interference made by any governments in the US under Amendment #1 is an objective, inarguable fact of reality. How ridiculous and absurd for anyone to suggest or imply that, unironically.
After all, not only was Newsom elected governor, but he had his position cemented by a recent failed recall attempt. Are you saying the people of California don’t have a right to dictate their own governance?
At no point did I ever suggest or imply that I ever believed in such a thing, either. Where are you getting this idea that I’m somehow a conservative who blindly believes that Newsom didn’t actually win the 2020 election from? I mean, you wouldn’t like it at all if I just assumed things about you without any proof, would you?
As for whether or not California has the right to their own state governance, the answer to that is yes, they clearly do, just like all other states in the union, and I never suggested otherwise. That still does not mean, however, that they (or any other state, along with D.C., for that matter) have any right to pass or enact legislation that violates the Constitution.
Are you better than them?
I still stand by everything I said above before now, and will always continue to do so, afterwards.
That being said, yes, I do believe that myself, or anyone else who isn’t as neurotic (all-around in so many areas), paranoid, hypersensitive, or stupid as the people who have been running that state into the ground for the past 10-15 years (and regarding places like San Fransico and Berkeley, the past 30-55 years), would definitely be more level-headed than they are.
So yeah, what of it, then? That does not automatically invadilate everything I said unironically above the previous block of text, especially when you consider that I both explicitly and sincerely stated so, two sentences earlier.
Why do you love the federal government so much?
This is another thing of which I never even remotely suggested or implied, and it seems as if you’re only making up shit like this about me for the sole benifit of getting a rise out of myself, rather than having an honest discussion or debate with me, at all, to be honest.
Only the company or the entrepreneur should have the final say in decision on what they can, will, and should sell to the public—either of their own desire, or via non-governmental public pressure.Tell me you don’t understand commercial law without telling me you don’t understand commercial law.
You apparently decided to either not read the entirety of what my post was and decided to only focus on this one snippet from it (because, why not!), or you instead actually did read it, yet still decided to focus on this one sentence, with it being the easiest and most convenient to focus on, exploit and pick apart. I’m not entierly sure about you, but it seems to me that all you’ve decided to do right there is, as we in the business like to call it, “going after low-hanging fruit” (Nontheless, I’ll make sure to be more careful in how I word the entirety of each of my posts, next time).
Also, this bill has absolutely nothing to do with the state regulating the manufacturing quality, saftey, or environmental aspects of any of the toys or the distributor that sells them, but rather just the mere artistic expression and visual characteristics of the product (and more specifically, how the distributor intends to sell them), both of which, according to the freedom of expression provision of the First Amendment, prohibits the federal government and any the state and local governments from enacting or passing any legislation that controls, regulates, or tampers with such activities carried out by any person, organization, or entity—both for-profit and not for-profit.
Conservatives platforms are always about fear.Fear of immigrants taking your jobs. Fear of schools teaching about racism.
Fear that the government is “coming after your guns”.
Fear of social change that stops emphasizing white, straight protestants.For a political ideology that chants about “not being afraid” they seem to be afraid of a lot.
Are you actually referring to me, or are you referring to something (or someone) else? Becuase I can tell you right now that I’m not even a conservative (rather, I’m actually a relative centrist who leans more to the left than the right overall, to be exact).
Also, as someone who has actually been around and talked to a good number of them (all of them happened to be relatively moderate to varying degrees, compared to what you may envision them to be), I can certainly say that from what I learned about them, it is that even though their platform may seem to be one where fear is the primary foundation of it or is at the very root of it, some of these things that you say about them are either greatly exaggerated, mischaracterized, or in the case you suggesting that they’re somehow afraid of “social change that stops emphasizing WASPs”, misconstrued and oversimplified in a hyperbolic sense.
That aside, however, they genuinly did not have anything to do with anything I talked about in my previous post, or the one before that at the end of the previous page. I sincerely hope you understand that, now.
Zincy
In Vino Veritas
I was not talking to you, no. I do not passive aggressively refer to people while not referring to them.
Had I been speaking to you, you would know.
Background Pony #7E57
@Zincy
I see. Good to know, then.
I see. Good to know, then.
Don’t you just love it when I’m not like the others conservatives, be they never-Trumpers, paleo, alt-right, neoreactionary, and right-“““libertarians””” blindly parrot neoconservative talking points without a hint of irony or self-awareness?Everything Adam Curtis said in The Power of Nightmares about them is correct; even moreso than ever.
I now know for a fact that Zincy wasn’t referring to me in his previous comment there, yet I am totally unsure as to whether or not you are actually referring to me, here.
Penguin Dragneel 
The Latest Tax Write-Off
@Zincy
F###ing hell. Dude deserved a life sentence with no parole at the very least.
F###ing hell. Dude deserved a life sentence with no parole at the very least.
I don’t care how much “mental stress” he was under. You do something as f###ed up as that, and you’d better hope I don’t leave you lying on the ground in your own blood.
F### him. And f### the dumbass who released him early.
Ebalosus
Build commie blocks!
Not referring to you either. Was merely pointing out that for all the shit a lot of conservatives throw at neocons, they still believe in like 95% of the same things as them, with their main talking points being “fear [x]! Only we can save you from [x]!”
NitroFury 
Nitro Cat Bad!
A pastor in Alabama was released from jail after only serving 1/3rd his sentence. Serving 5 years of a 15 stint. He was released for “good behavior” and because of “extreme mental stress” caused by being a 61 year old diabetic.Now, I bet you’re wondering his crime yea? Assault? Larceny?It was raping a 9 year old girl on her father’s grave, and sexually assaulting several other young women.Good behavior, mental stress, and released in 5 years. For raping someone on their father’s grave.
This can’t be real, right?
Background Pony #7E57
@Ebalosus
Ah, fair enough. Btw, did you see my post on the previous page? Everything regarding California’s new toy bill points to the government of that state approving legislation to be enacted that is in direct violation of the free expression provision of the First Amendment.
Ah, fair enough. Btw, did you see my post on the previous page? Everything regarding California’s new toy bill points to the government of that state approving legislation to be enacted that is in direct violation of the free expression provision of the First Amendment.
The state government has degraded since 2011 to the point where it now has absolute brain worms, and it’s such a depressing, unsettling, and unpleasant sight to behold to the rational and sane, like myself.
Makes me convinced that Drake and Josh had the right idea of kidnapping the governer, but were only 14-16 years too early.
Background Human
CHS, Class of 20XX
@Background Pony #7E57
Commercial speech has never enjoyed full 1A protection. The state has a substantial interest in reducing gender discrimination. And requiring a gender-neutral section is less restrictive than prohibiting boys’ and girls’ aisles entirely.
Commercial speech has never enjoyed full 1A protection. The state has a substantial interest in reducing gender discrimination. And requiring a gender-neutral section is less restrictive than prohibiting boys’ and girls’ aisles entirely.
Try again.
Background Pony #7E57
@Background Pony #7E57
Commercial speech has never enjoyed full 1A protection.
Unless you are referring to advetisements and advertising, citation is needed.
The state has a substantial interest in reducing gender discrimination. And requiring a gender-neutral section is less restrictive than prohibiting boys’ and girls’ aisles entirely.
Apparently, whatever the fuck has been going on in toy stores before now regarding gender is “discrimination”, and my interest is somewhat piqued by this, though I still have yet to see any citations for this phenomenon from anyone who may seem to know about it.
Try again.
Only one of us needs to “try again”, and I’m not the one who hasn’t already posted any citations.
Background Pony #7E57
Deletion reason: Poster request
Background Pony #7E57
@Background Pony #7E57
Actually, just disregard that. I thought it would have already been shut off, by now.
Actually, just disregard that. I thought it would have already been shut off, by now.
Background Human
CHS, Class of 20XX
@Background Pony #7E57
The idea that commercial speech is entitled to any First Amendment protection is a relatively recent doctrine. As in, newer than Roe v. Wade. 1942, Valentine v. Chrestensen, the Court straight-up says commercial speech isn’t protected. And even when they changed their minds in the ‘70s, they didn’t go all out. 1980, Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission, the Court lays out a four-part test under which regulations on commercial speech can stand. Does the California law survive that test? Hell, I don’t know; I’m not a judge. But it’s hardly the slam dunk you make it out to be.
The idea that commercial speech is entitled to any First Amendment protection is a relatively recent doctrine. As in, newer than Roe v. Wade. 1942, Valentine v. Chrestensen, the Court straight-up says commercial speech isn’t protected. And even when they changed their minds in the ‘70s, they didn’t go all out. 1980, Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission, the Court lays out a four-part test under which regulations on commercial speech can stand. Does the California law survive that test? Hell, I don’t know; I’m not a judge. But it’s hardly the slam dunk you make it out to be.
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!