So the State of Texas wants to control local regulations

Why shouldn't the state take control? The City of Dallas wants the state to bail out its soon to be banckrupt police and fire pension. Originally Posted by pyramider

Let them go bankrupt. Houston has a big problem in that regard too.


Does not mean you give the state control over wtf should be individual rights.

its about controlling city rights when it interferes with the states economy.

you have many cities with a hodge podge of regulations that negatively affect a national company like uber & lyft from operating in those cities with taxi cab like regulations.

what the state did is actually the start of the breaking up the taxi cab monopolies in texas. it is ridiculous that there are burdensome & costly regulations that prevent an individual from entering the taxi business with just his car. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

One could say that about health care and why we should have the Feds run things.

Why do you trust the fucking State Government so damn much?

In you State right fuckers mind... what made the State bureaucracy God?


.

You think you were lucky you did meet Luke. . .

Sub contractors put leans on homes that they have issue with like being owed money. Something I've never had to deal with.

Your ignorant ass is just parroting what other ignorant parrots have spouted.

You have no idea wtf you're talking about.

You do not have a 2nd amendment right to take up legal matters with arms you ignorant racist hillbilly. Originally Posted by WTF

" You do not have the right to take up legal matter with arms..." And so YOU won't mind when some low life liberal voter break into YOUR house or property and commits ANY crime - theft, assault, rape- on YOU or YOUR family ! Typical liberal, doesn't think the " individual right " to defend one's self or property should include the exercise of one's Second Amendment rights !

" You do not have the right to take up legal matter with arms..." And so YOU won't mind when some low life liberal voter break into YOUR house or property and commits ANY crime - theft, assault, rape- on YOU or YOUR family ! Typical liberal, doesn't think the " individual right " to defend one's self or property should include the exercise of one's Second Amendment rights ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Jesus, what an ignorant fucking parrot.

If course one can defend oneself with reasonable force.

I was talking about taking arms up over legal matters, that is not legal you dumdass fucking shitstain on the whole forum.

You derive what little power you perceive via this gang mentality.

Trump has let you in his circle of jerks and somehow you and others feel empowered. I bet you burnt Dixie Chicks CD's.

On a side note, I'd actually love for you to break into my house so I could light you up like a Christmas tree.

If the local municipalities would make the playing field equal for everybody the state would not have to stip in.

There was an issue with controlling who could be licensed within certain municipalities where they would make it more difficult or impossible for a person or entity to become licensed there thus restricting who they would allow. This led to local corruption as well as restricting free enterprise. The state stepped in and created state licensing that put a stop to that. The end result is cities, like Houston, have made it very difficult, time consuming, onerous, permitting process that ends up costing the consumer more money and time.

I am in favor of local control as long as it is fair and evenhanded and not a pay to play type situation where one lobby gets the say so of how things are done such as taxi and wrecker industries.

If the local municipalities would make the playing field equal for everybody the state would not have to stip in.

There was an issue with controlling who could be licensed within certain municipalities where they would make it more difficult or impossible for a person or entity to become licensed there thus restricting who they would allow. This led to local corruption as well as restricting free enterprise. The state stepped in and created state licensing that put a stop to that. The end result is cities, like Houston, have made it very difficult, time consuming, onerous, permitting process that ends up costing the consumer more money and time.

I am in favor of local control as long as it is fair and evenhanded and not a pay to play type situation where one lobby gets the say so of how things are done such as taxi and wrecker industries. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Some of you are missing my point.

You state right lovers love to scream about local control... when it is the Feds wielding control.

Why do you hold the state in such high regard?

What have they done to deserve such trust?

Take abortion, should the Feds, State, county, city or individual make that moral choice?

I agree the cities were making it difficult on uber. That is a whole not her discussion, one which we might discuss why states will not let insurance be sold across state lines.

Could be because of mayors like Sylvester Turner, Chief Bugaloosa Brown, Analease Porker, Bill White, and councilman like Jolando Jones, that messcin from the eastside that went to prison, et.al.

Let's say that in order to build homes in Houston TX they enact an ordinance that says you have to be licensed by the city of Houston before you do any work and that in order to get that licenses you have to take a "Home Builder Contractors Test" that is very subjective as to the correct answers. You also have to do the same in Harris County but it is a different subjective test, and a different one in say San Antonio. Now you take the test and are told you did not pass because a few big home builders have lobbied the city officials to limit the number of builders. While this is purely a hypothetical situation for say home builders, such was not always the case for other trades. So you fail in Houston and you fail in Harris county and you fail in San Antonio, not because you actually failed the test but because you were being marginalized by the system. This at one time was particularly true in way too many towns and cities all across Texas.

This is not much different than the State of Texas stopping towns that were using speed trap;s to fund their budgets and making it so that only a percentage of their budgets could be derived from tickets.

In the case of the uber/lyft issue, who was over reaching in what was being done to limit employment or the ability for an individual to work? Was it the local cities or the state?

Your premise that as a conservative libertarian that I do not believe that there should be any control from the federal government and that is not true. The Constitution clearly spells out what they are allowed to do by the consent of the people which at this point is way past being able to bring under control. The rest is left to the States, often confused with State's rights which the States actually have no rights but are allowed by the consent of the people to have some forms of control, which is also out of control.

It is sort of like I believe that the city should have no say so over a business being able to decide to allow smoking or not to allow smoking. I do not think that is something the city should have control over. If you don't like smoke, don't go and the problem is solved. This idea that everybody has a right to whatever they believe should be imposed on somebody else is just plain wrong. But what about the employees, you whine. Nobody says you have to work there, Find a different job. Get over it. Now you have the choice of riding in an overpriced taxicab or a nice clean car with a convicted sexual predator for your driver. Just don't drop your wallet when you exit the vehicle.

Exactly....fucking old white bastards over 200 years ago gave to ordinary man/woman no power but to submit to State or Fed or city control.

We have very little freedom in this country if any at all.

One could say that about health care and why we should have the Feds run things.

Why do you trust the fucking State Government so damn much? Originally Posted by WTF

I don't.

I do not want the fed govt. fucking around with health care. its fucked enough as it is.

every state govt. including the fed govt. is different in how they handle things.

some states are better at making sure that the economic field is even for business to work in.

some states are good at rent seeking.

for instance, in Louisiana, one couldn't sell a coffin without an embalmers license. there was a group of St. Tammany monks were making coffins without a license. they got sued by the embalmers board. and yes, the monks won in federal court.

I don't.

I do not want the fed govt. fucking around with health care. its fucked enough as it is.
Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

So you want the Federal Government out of Medicare?

We have very little freedom in this country if any at all. Originally Posted by WTF

You are right you old white fucker!!!