Campaign 2008: The Stupidest Election Ever

[nostalgicBadger]

I support state rights...

Although I seem to be the only one left.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I support state rights...

Although I seem to be the only one left.

I think the idea of State Rights are great. Unfortunately, they've been trod under for so long, it would require major overhauls of lots and lots of legislation which neither party would like. Heck, most other 'States Rights' advocates seem to only like it when it deals with the issues that fit their view.

The Federal Government can't say we have to allow abortions! But, by God it should outlaw gay marriage!
I think the States should have the right to legalize Pot, but we should outlaw all guns!

The Guns and Dope Party is the only party that ever understood States Rights


Olga 2012!

[Cain]

State rights is a code word for the conservative movement's support of Jim Crow laws.

If you think anything else, you got suckered by the propaganda.  Look to the effect, not the rhetoric.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

State rights is a code word for the conservative movement's support of Jim Crow laws.

If you think anything else, you got suckered by the propaganda.  Look to the effect, not the rhetoric.

Well, in my reference, I'm talking about the right for States to make independent decisions, which is code word for "How the damned country started in the first place". However, its use in popular culture at this point is a cross between Jim Crow and Abortion/Anti-Roe v. Wade bullshit.

HOWEVER, based on my experiences in this country, I think things would, in general, work much better if the Federal Government dealt with Interstate Commerce, National Defense and Ensuring that the States didn't trample the Constitutional rights of the citizens (which would overrule any attempt at Jim Crow).

Most other stuff, I think, should be handled by the states. To think that the BiP of a person in Boston and the BiP of a person in Alabama and the BiP of a person in California are close enough to willingly live under a single set of subjective laws ... seems asinine to me.

[Cain]

Unfortunately, that's theory versus practice.  In theory, some things are handled better at a local or state level, but I would strongly suggest that universalized rights, such as civil liberties are not among those, based on past practice.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Even if it weren't the Lester Maddox revival society, "States Rights" are pretty heavily regulated by article VI of the US constitution.

Or perhaps you'd like to go back to the good old days of the articles of confederation, Shay's rebellion, the whiskey rebellion, etc?

[nostalgicBadger]

Believe it or not, I honestly do support state rights across the board - that's the only way it really makes any sense. And I'm not sure what propaganda you mean, Cain - it's something I only ever heard discussed by libertarians, and it's actually how I learned about the libertarian movement. Unfortunately, their political philosophies tend to carry along other things that I don't necessarily agree with. Ron Paul is Pro-Life? What?

The United States is a pretty massive country, and the culture of, say, California, does not necessarily match the culture of Texas. Therefore, I don't think the massive population of one state should be dictating the laws of another. Anyway, I like the idea that different people could find different states that suit their priorities, and they can move about as they change as individuals. I just don't believe that you can govern such a diverse range of people across the entire country in exactly the same way.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Believe it or not, I honestly do support state rights across the board - that's the only way it really makes any sense. And I'm not sure what propaganda you mean, Cain - it's something I only ever heard discussed by libertarians, and it's actually how I learned about the libertarian movement. Unfortunately, their political philosophies tend to carry along other things that I don't necessarily agree with. Ron Paul is Pro-Life? What?

The United States is a pretty massive country, and the culture of, say, California, does not necessarily match the culture of Texas. Therefore, I don't think the massive population of one state should be dictating the laws of another. Anyway, I like the idea that different people could find different states that suit their priorities, and they can move about as they change as individuals. I just don't believe that you can govern such a diverse range of people across the entire country in exactly the same way.

So you support a confederation, rather than a federation.

[nostalgicBadger]

I guess you could say that. I wouldn't say across the board - constitutional issues, like civil liberties, should be federal, but that's basically it. The federal government shouldn't control things like drinking age, driving age, gun laws, et cetera. It just doesn't make sense for California to influence the gun laws in Texas, and why should a bunch of rednecks in West Virginia be able to say that gays in New England can't get married?

[maphdet]

We're all Human with ALL different opinions-which will Never has nor Never will lead to a workable system for all.



Back to that big pile 'O shit.

[Requia ☣]

Roger, you are aware that state's rights didn't go away just cause they moved to a federal system?  Hell, the entire point of federalism was to have a central government and maintain states rights.

Of course, then states rights got tossed out cause we needed to outlaw drugs, (horrible drugs that turn you into an axe murderer!).  And federalism was perverted to become this horrible lurching monster used pretty much entirely to support a legal theory of dismantling the 14th amendment, and thus stripping away the bill of rights at the state level (again).  Governments not allowed to set up state religions, federalism to the rescue!, people being arrested because they need weed to keep from starving to death?  No states rights at all.

[Cain]

Frum, Brooks, Althouse, Peggy Noonan and the rest are "cocktail conservatives" and "Obama-cons", for pointing out that GOP style politics, as they stand, are far removed from what America wants and so need a serious rethink.  As one Bush advisor put it, they are "dead men walking" in the party, especially for criticizing Palin.

Tomorrow will be the start of the Night of the Long Knives.  Comrades found unwilling to blame the loss of the election on ACORN and claim alleigance to Palin will be purged.  Its going to be gloriously messy.  A circular firing squad of epic proportions is sizing up for one hell of a political bloodbath, which will likely rumble on until next summer.

I'm pretty sure May counts as summer.

[Honey]

right on target!  (as usual)