Don't like freedom?

[csgators]

Well CS, the cold light of day has arrived, and I have had some more time to think on all of this. I have to tell you that what Vagrant0 said above makes a lot of sense to me; Ginny's response notwithstanding. He most obviously did do his homework, so I have no idea what she means in her response.

 

When I originally suggested that you might be copping out on those issues you were leaving to the states, this is exactly what I was talking about. It is just too easy that way, and nothing gets resolved. Particularly when it is always the most controversial issues/laws/regulations that you don't seem to want to have handled by the feds.

 

The fact is that freedom is not so easy as we all seem to think it is. We all need to understand that and be willing to make the necessary sacrifices in order to achieve it.

 

I am weary of those who continually feel the need to rant about Liberals being responsible for taking it away and Conservatives being holier than thou. It has absolutely nothing to do with political persuasion. It has to do with the ability to think clearly and responsibly and to care about one's country and all of it's people.

 

Maybe if we can all stop this senseless "blame game" and try to put our heads together, we could really come up with a sensible, workable result. However, I must admit after reading much of what I have seen on this thread, I am not sure there is much of a likelihood of that. It apparently seems way too easy to do nothing and stand around accusing each other and pointing fingers than to get together and do something, doesn't it?

 

Think I am done with this one too.

 

I honestly didn't think his post even worth responding to, more straw men. If you like states rights you must want to bring back slavery and witch burning. Bringing up things clearly in federal jurisdiction and pretending the states would suddenly be doing them. Whatever.

[HeyYou]

Well CS, the cold light of day has arrived, and I have had some more time to think on all of this. I have to tell you that what Vagrant0 said above makes a lot of sense to me; Ginny's response notwithstanding. He most obviously did do his homework, so I have no idea what she means in her response.

 

When I originally suggested that you might be copping out on those issues you were leaving to the states, this is exactly what I was talking about. It is just too easy that way, and nothing gets resolved. Particularly when it is always the most controversial issues/laws/regulations that you don't seem to want to have handled by the feds.

 

The fact is that freedom is not so easy as we all seem to think it is. We all need to understand that and be willing to make the necessary sacrifices in order to achieve it.

 

I am weary of those who continually feel the need to rant about Liberals being responsible for taking it away and Conservatives being holier than thou. It has absolutely nothing to do with political persuasion. It has to do with the ability to think clearly and responsibly and to care about one's country and all of it's people.

 

Maybe if we can all stop this senseless "blame game" and try to put our heads together, we could really come up with a sensible, workable result. However, I must admit after reading much of what I have seen on this thread, I am not sure there is much of a likelihood of that. It apparently seems way too easy to do nothing and stand around accusing each other and pointing fingers than to get together and do something, doesn't it?

 

Think I am done with this one too.

 

Would be really nice if we could all just get together, and actually work on solving some of the problems, trouble is, the political climate in the states has changed of late, and now, it is more 'fashionable' to play the blame game, rant and rave about how your opponent is 'un-american', or 'deluded', or numerous other insults, than it is to actually try and fix things. Both parties (all of them??) are too entrenched in their "I am right, and you are a raving lunatic" stance, to get anything appreciable done. Quite frankly, I think have a split congress is actually SAVING us from some of the outright stupidity I have seen coming out of both houses of late.

 

So far as I am concerned, so long as things continue as they are, we are doomed. There are no bi-partisan talks, there is no consensus, all we have is political in-fighting. Our legislators have lost sight of what their job REALLY is, to wit: representing what is best for the most people, and only cater to those that line their pockets, and keep them in office.

 

Reading various boards such as this one, and any news site that allows public comment, you see the exact same behavior, the exact same arguments, the exact same accusations, the exact same arguments, etc..... So, what do I expect to see happen? More of the same, our economy continuing to slow, the price of gas continuing to rise, which will also have a negative affect on the economy..... We will degenerate into a stratified society, the haves, and the have-nots.... and the haves will be making all the rules, to make sure that they stay on top.

 

So long as the current campaign system, and campaign finance rules remain in place, nothing is going to change either. The folks on top make far too much money from the current system, to even want to change it. They would essentially be cutting their own throats.... Not gonna happen.

 

We are headed for a crash, and it is gonna be bad. Maybe then, the american people will wake up, and actually take their country back from the folks that are supposed to be serving US. (who only seem to serve themselves.)

[ginnyfizz]

Liberals want to ban contraception, make women legal minors, ban mixed-race marriage?? Really? That doesn't sound 'liberal' to me...... Some of it sounds like stuff right out of the catholic church.......

 

I'm glad you qualified your remark with "some of it", since as far as I am aware the latter two things ain't doctrine, (I refer you to the Taliban and the neo-Nazis respectively)and the first one is doctrine that most of us at one time have said a few Hail Mary's for bypassing... :whistling: .

 

I am always amused when men talk of contraception as being a form of freedom...and then many refuse to use condoms and expect their partners (if female) to take the pill, never mind the risks. Sure that's freedom.

 

And BlackBaron2, you can be as smartypants as you like with your snide little references to Godwin's Law, but the fact is that I have the misfortune to live in an area of England where the British National Party are very active. They were the only party I heard at the last local elections who were spouting a racist agenda. I was personally abused by them, on my way to vote, as "That Jew boy's granddaughter" and told that Hitler had the right idea about people like me. (I spoiled my ballot paper for the parish council because it had only the Labour Party or them on it.) And you are telling me they aren't neo-Nazis? They have a bloody festival and march around here every year and I see plenty of swastikas, as well as hearing renditions of a version of the Horst Wessel lied.

 

And Grannywils, actually try reading what I posted again;-

 

I rather think, had you read his post properly, Vagrant0, that you would have noticed that he showed his knowledge of his country and his Constitution by quoting the provision

 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

It therefore seems to me that so far from having a "startling ignorance" he is stating the facts and the position as the US Constitution lays down, that in certain areas the individual states do have power/jurisdictional freedom. I don't see him arguing for the sort of extreme measures and scenarios that you depict. Yet more intellectual arrogance and stereotyping from someone on the Left leaning side, assuming that the conservative side can neither read "I mean, seriously, do some reading of history back when the states were founded" - how do you know he hasn't? - nor develop a mind of their own.

 

Vagrant had gone off on a tangent about something that csgators never even mentioned and once more was using condescending and contemptuous terms, telling him to do some reading and that he was ignorant. It is all very well to say "I am weary of those who continually feel the need to rant about Liberals being responsible for taking it away and Conservatives being holier than thou" - when actually I have not heard a single Conservative suggest that they are holier than thou. I have, on the other hand, heard a lot of the usual tactic of smearing the Conservatives as ignorant rednecks who don't know what they are talking about, and even you have done some of this, Grannywils, much to my surprise.

 

When those of the left leaning majority on here start to acknowledge that there are some of us on the Conservative wing who actually do have brains, and start to counter arguments with "I believe that my view creates/allows/promotes freedom...because..." rather than lobbing in references to listening to too much Glenn Beck, then we will have a debate.

[grannywils]

CS, am disappointed that you felt Vagrant0's post was "hardly worth responding to. There were no "straw men". He made some legitimate points, even if you disagreed with them. I hope you at least listened to him. Anyway, I like you a lot and just wanted to say that. That's all....

[csgators]

CS, am disappointed that you felt Vagrant0's post was "hardly worth responding to. There were no "straw men". He made some legitimate points, even if you disagreed with them. I hope you at least listened to him. Anyway, I like you a lot and just wanted to say that. That's all....

 

Don't worry, I'm ignorant so he doesn't need to hear from me.

Edited June 18, 2011 by csgators

[marharth]

No, not liberals.

 

I'm talking about the extremists who go around saying everybody who disagrees with them hates freedom. The TEA PARTY.

You can attempt to marginalize the tea party all you want by painting them as extremists but that is a very old Liberal tactic with anyone who disagrees with their world view. If you don't see the world through the liberal prism you are an extremest, get over it the Tea Party is here to stay. Given the overwhelming congressional democratic defeats ( the largest shift in seats since 1948) in state and federal and gubernatorial elections in 2010, the country does not seem to agree with your perspective. Since 2010 was a redistricting year there will be much more to come in the way of change of national course. What Liberals cannot take is that the Tea Party was a grass roots movement that holds no fealty to the Republican Party, they like to think that the grass root concept is all theirs and are perturbed when others use it too. Just for the record the part of the Tea Party that I do agree with is fiscal responsibility, they (TP) are the only large group with that overarching intent currently on the political scene. The Liberals may hold on to 1600 Pennsylvania ave but the Conservatives will have all the rest, you cannot enact a liberal agenda when no bills cross your desk to fit that ideology. Eventually, even with Obama's Justice Dept. stall tactics his Healthcare Bill will reach the Supreme Court and that too will ruled as unconstitutional.

 

http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/4526/teapartymap.gif

The only reason I somewhat like the tea party is because some of the people voted into congress stand up to corporate america, which is something that doesn't happen anywhere else.

 

They may not be the same as the republicans, but they are extremely similar in policy.

 

I wouldn't really call them entirely a grassroots movement, they had a ton of people funding them after all.

 

I would also like to say the tea party is in no way "extremists" as black baron said.

Edited June 18, 2011 by marharth

[Vagrant0]

My previous post was entirely in response to the thing I was quoting... the notion that having no national laws and granting states to decide all their own laws as being a good idea...

 

Because the design of our country is so wonderful. We have 50 states in which to test ideas and 50 states that you can choose to live in. I hate when everything is mandated from on high with a one size fits all "solution"

 

This wasn't what was said, but was merely an extension of what was said. If there is no "one size fits all solution" about one thing, why would there be in regards to something like rights to vote, own land, ect. A law of the land exists as a necessary guide toward what sorts of laws are constitutional to be enforced within a state. The examples mentioned were purposely extreme, but were all things which happened before national laws were laid out awarding or denying rights to individuals and state governments. People still don't agree that laws ending segregation are a "solution", but it certainly seems better than the alternative. It seems that this point was missed.

 

 

Let me put it in simple terms... Would you rather have:

 

One law making it so that ALL persons of illegal status be immediately stripped of all property/standing and be deported.

 

Or, several laws which allow persons of illegal status to work towards citizenship, remain in the country if they contribute positively to the community and have family members who are citizens, or possess talents or ideas which enrich the country. But still deport those who sneak into the country, commit crimes, have no interest in being documented, and have no interests here other than earning money to send home across the border.

 

The first one is a single law, but it is far less free than the second one which is several laws due to granting certain permissions to those who wish to be a part of this country.

 

This is something which is also not controlled directly by the constitution, but rather falls into the range of state rights, yet many states have come under fire for being both too lenient on immigration laws as well being too strict. There is no "law of the land" so every state has to spend the time and resources figuring out their own policy while many of these illegals shift from one state to the next hoping for greener pastures when the laws do get changed by politicians who are easily swayed by corporate dollar and pressures from re-election.

 

This was the point I was trying to make, and is the reason why national laws are needed, so that you don't have states changing laws on whim and pushing unwanted persons onto other states. Until national laws were passed regarding segregation, Jim Crow laws served a similar purpose in trying to keep African Americans from having any rights, and being pressured to leave the state. It's the same exact thing, except is no longer regional, and isn't restricted to color of skin.

 

And we can't very well have no laws regarding immigration.

[HeyYou]

Let me put it in simple terms... Would you rather have:

 

One law making it so that ALL persons of illegal status be immediately stripped of all property/standing and be deported.

 

Or, several laws which allow persons of illegal status to work towards citizenship, remain in the country if they contribute positively to the community and have family members who are citizens, or possess talents or ideas which enrich the country. But still deport those who sneak into the country, commit crimes, have no interest in being documented, and have no interests here other than earning money to send home across the border.

 

The first one is a single law, but it is far less free than the second one which is several laws due to granting certain permissions to those who wish to be a part of this country.

 

This is something which is also not controlled directly by the constitution, but rather falls into the range of state rights, yet many states have come under fire for being both too lenient on immigration laws as well being too strict. There is no "law of the land" so every state has to spend the time and resources figuring out their own policy while many of these illegals shift from one state to the next hoping for greener pastures when the laws do get changed by politicians who are easily swayed by corporate dollar and pressures from re-election.

 

This was the point I was trying to make, and is the reason why national laws are needed, so that you don't have states changing laws on whim and pushing unwanted persons onto other states. Until national laws were passed regarding segregation, Jim Crow laws served a similar purpose in trying to keep African Americans from having any rights, and being pressured to leave the state. It's the same exact thing, except is no longer regional, and isn't restricted to color of skin.

 

And we can't very well have no laws regarding immigration.

 

If the federal government would actually ENFORCE the immigration laws that are already on the books, the states would have no need to come up with their own versions, and have the feds challenge them in court as to whether they have the authority to pass, and enforce, such laws.

[marharth]

Let me put it in simple terms... Would you rather have:

 

One law making it so that ALL persons of illegal status be immediately stripped of all property/standing and be deported.

 

Or, several laws which allow persons of illegal status to work towards citizenship, remain in the country if they contribute positively to the community and have family members who are citizens, or possess talents or ideas which enrich the country. But still deport those who sneak into the country, commit crimes, have no interest in being documented, and have no interests here other than earning money to send home across the border.

 

The first one is a single law, but it is far less free than the second one which is several laws due to granting certain permissions to those who wish to be a part of this country.

 

This is something which is also not controlled directly by the constitution, but rather falls into the range of state rights, yet many states have come under fire for being both too lenient on immigration laws as well being too strict. There is no "law of the land" so every state has to spend the time and resources figuring out their own policy while many of these illegals shift from one state to the next hoping for greener pastures when the laws do get changed by politicians who are easily swayed by corporate dollar and pressures from re-election.

 

This was the point I was trying to make, and is the reason why national laws are needed, so that you don't have states changing laws on whim and pushing unwanted persons onto other states. Until national laws were passed regarding segregation, Jim Crow laws served a similar purpose in trying to keep African Americans from having any rights, and being pressured to leave the state. It's the same exact thing, except is no longer regional, and isn't restricted to color of skin.

 

And we can't very well have no laws regarding immigration.

 

If the federal government would actually ENFORCE the immigration laws that are already on the books, the states would have no need to come up with their own versions, and have the feds challenge them in court as to whether they have the authority to pass, and enforce, such laws.

Its not very easy to enforce immigration laws on a federal level.

[Vagrant0]

If the federal government would actually ENFORCE the immigration laws that are already on the books, the states would have no need to come up with their own versions, and have the feds challenge them in court as to whether they have the authority to pass, and enforce, such laws.

The federal government can't enforce it because the laws they're working with are outdated and cannot meet the pressures of what is still an open border, or the demands of the system. So currently yes, states HAVE TO come up with their own policies, even when they aren't always constitutional... Which is essentially the point I'm making. You have a national law which doesn't work, but state laws which are swayed by local interests. The same was true during segregation. In both cases, this does not mean states are more "free" in the sense that CS is trying to claim (fewer laws = more free), but rather that they have to scramble making new laws to get around the few federal laws and letting the dollar or votes be their guide. It explains the necessity of viable national laws, and how states can quickly abuse powers for their own interests.

 

CS was right in one regard though..

Because the design of our country is so wonderful. We have 50 states in which to test ideas

But stopped short of one very important thing... States rights don't exist to be FREE of national policy, but rather to help DEFINE national policy and be able to react quickly to a changing environment. State laws are quick, national laws are slow. This is how the system is setup, and is WHY the design of our country is so wonderful.