(07-14-2021 03:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 03:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 12:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-14-2021 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Key word is detrimental.

No, the key word is 'equal'. Just like the word is 'racist', and 'discrimination', you now seek to add all these other 'key words' (albeit they reside as key only in your own mind).

Again, the 'key word' is *not* 'detrimental'. The 'key word' (and 'key concept', mind you) is 'equal'. I find it astounding in one sense that that escapes you for your retreat point of 'detrimental.'

Quote:If there is an established minimum access that is required, and that is meant, I don’t see why going above and beyond is an issue. Establishing a floor to equal access makes sense to me. Establishing a ceiling to equal access makes less sense to me.

Again, a progressive that isnt really in tune with the idea of 'equal' as used in 'equal access'. Lolz.

Quote:If someone can articulate a compelling arguments as to why a county should not be able to expand access,

Uhh...... equal access. Funny how some of you go ape **** for some types of equal access, then go ape **** in the reverse anti- sense for other types of equal access.

Have to say, that blindness of the term 'equal' really makes me laugh.

I can't control what "some of [us]" go "ape ****" over. I can just control my opinion.

Sorry that I did not confer with other progressives and get their buy off on my personal opinion, you seem rather annoyed that there isn't a unified group think you can attack.

Like I said, it makes sense to establish a floor to equal access that all must abide by. But should a jurisdiction want to enhance access for all their constituents, I don't see a compelling reason to keep said jurisdiction from doing that, so long as the agreed upon floor was met.

It's similar to environmental protections, IMO. You set a floor one must achieve at a larger area, and if a more local jurisdiction wants to exceed the floor, they can do that.

Cool, the reasoning behind separate but equal. Lolz.

The problem is that, seemingly, you have zero idea of what a protected or a fundamental right is. Nor apparently of the concept of equal access. In fact, I am sure you dont have a clue on the concept of equal access, since you are the unabashed board champion of explicitly racially discriminatory policies elsewhere.

And I might not. But this is my opinion on the matter - you trying to chastise or belittle me won't change my opinion. But offering a compelling argument as to why the expansion of access results in an problematic situation would be a good way to start.

Equal access to and opportunity to equally exercise a fundamental right seems pretty basic in my book. Extremely so. I guess you dont give a **** about that.

Quote:

Quote:Some places can give it the 'floor' (Crane County). Some places can give it all the bells and whistles, since it is more. All is good in that setup apparently. What other fundamental rights do you want to have others being given unequal access to based on residency?

Sounds like fun there, lad.

Well, we know that gun laws vary based on where someone lives, with some places being more strict than others.

Or is that not a fundamental right in this discussion?

Funny, across Texas they are not. Amazing that, isnt it.

Heres a good one for you, just so we are clear on the subject:

People in Crane County cannot talk about (name a political subject).
People in Travis County can talk and have full breadth of speech, including all aspects political.

All I have done in the above is take your favored inequality, and just modified the delta in the aspects. And that, my young friend, is the essence of what you are supporting. As I noted earlier, sounds like a rip roaring good time.

It is radical differences in the preaching of your 'equality', when coupled with your outright hostility to other forms of equality (even in the aspect of of fundamental and core rights) that boggles my mind.

The only consistent characteristic is whether they follow Democratic voting doctrine or not. That is, as opposed to having an opinion on the concept of equal access to fundamental rights itself.