Third, some conservatives aren't concerned about "states' rights issues" in any specific form so much as they are concerned about "states' rights" in general, i.e., the fact that the federal government has far more authority than the original documents responsible for its creation would suggest it actually has. It's not always about ulterior motives.
That one seems like a bit of a red herring given the whole Civil War and the ensuing amendments to the Con. I agree there are some libertarians who would be happy with a narrow reading of the commerce clause, but historically it seems that narrow readings of the constitution are more tactical (civil rights, abortion).
I could just as easily say that your argument seems like a bit of a red herring, given that the Civil War happened over one hundred years ago. I do hope you're not suggesting that some states would actually reinstitute slavery if given the option.
Historically, it seems that broad readings of the Constitution are more tactical as well (again, civil rights, abortion). The simple truth of the matter is that people read into the Constitution whatever they want to read into it.
I do not deny that I have my own biases, just like everyone else on this board. But I try to recognize and overcome those biases to read the text of those documents for what they actually say, rather than what I would like them to say.
Teletheus on
PSN/XBL/Steam/Twitter: Teletheus
0
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
You can't just pick and choose and say you support states' rights when it benefits you. That's why I support states' rights even when I disagree with individual results. States' rights are a systemic issue.
No, I'm pretty sure I can. I can support States' Rights right up until they start misbehaving and then I support the Federal Government coming in and saying "Stop that you dumb fucks". Does that mean that I have to then be supportive of everything the Federal Government does that overrules the States? Of course not. Supporting one over the other in one instance doesn't mean you should do it in all instances.
Third, some conservatives aren't concerned about "states' rights issues" in any specific form so much as they are concerned about "states' rights" in general, i.e., the fact that the federal government has far more authority than the original documents responsible for its creation would suggest it actually has. It's not always about ulterior motives.
That one seems like a bit of a red herring given the whole Civil War and the ensuing amendments to the Con. I agree there are some libertarians who would be happy with a narrow reading of the commerce clause, but historically it seems that narrow readings of the constitution are more tactical (civil rights, abortion).
I could just as easily say that your argument seems like a bit of a red herring, given that the Civil War happened over one hundred years ago. I do hope you're not suggesting that some states would actually reinstitute slavery if given the option.
Historically, it seems that broad readings of the Constitution are more tactical as well (again, civil rights, abortion). The simple truth of the matter is that people read into the Constitution whatever they want to read into it.
I do not deny that I have my own biases, just like everyone else on this board. But I try to recognize and overcome those biases to read the text of those documents for what they actually say, rather than what I would like them to say.
I'm not giving liberals a pass here. I just don't think there are many people who start with the notion of an unassailable constitution and then through unflinching deduction come to inevitable conclusions. Call me a cynic.
As for reinstituting slavery, no I don't think they would but they did fight tooth and claw over slavery and civil rights. By what logic does a Bork originalist deem the Civil Rights Amendment constitutional?
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
It's pretty clear that anyone who comes down purely in favor of states' rights as a doctrine is doing so from a starkly ideological standpoint. States' rights gave us things like Jim Crow laws. Even the hardest core of the states' rights crowd is going to have a hard time publicly supporting things like that.
The reality is that a balance needs to be struck between the two. Federal statute exists to give a baseline upon which the states can build. The entire point is that whatever the states do, they can't go below that line. Unfortunately, they frequently attempt to do just that.
It is the intent not your interpretation that matters.
False. It's just common courtesy. If you say something that you didn't mean to be racist but a person of color says "hey that's racist," you should say "I'm sorry, I won't say that again." Period. If you call a grown-ass black man "boy," then yeah. That's racist.
States don't have rights. People have rights. And states are in the habit of passing laws that infringe on minority or otherwise disenfranchised people's rights more often than the federal government is (yes I know there are counterexamples, the Patriot Act for one is very obvious). The comparison between states' rights = racism gets drawn because the "states' rights" rhetoric came out in full force because racists fighting against civil rights for black people wanted to resist the imposition of federal antidiscrimination laws. But it's true, states' rights != racism. "States' rights" also provide a convenient excuse for homophobia and misogyny.
I'm not giving liberals a pass here. I just don't think there are many people who start with the notion of an unassailable constitution and then through unflinching deduction come to inevitable conclusions. Call me a cynic.
I agree. But I think there should be more of them.
As for reinstituting slavery, no I don't think they would but they did fight tooth and claw over slavery and civil rights. By what logic does a Bork originalist deem the Civil Rights Amendment constitutional?
Well, technically speaking, the Civil Rights Act was on constitutionally shaky ground. It did the right thing in the wrong way.
It's just common courtesy. If you say something that you didn't mean to be racist but a person of color says "hey that's racist," you should say "I'm sorry, I won't say that again." Period. If you call a grown-ass black man "boy," then yeah. That's racist.
Even when when "a person of color" is incredibly wrong and raising the racism flag in error? Like with the Sambo fruit issue with the game Scribblenauts? It's common courtesy to not say things that you know to be racially insensitive. It's also common courtesy to not raise a stink when you know something was said in a completely innocent and innocuous way. That's courtesy that everyone can afford and it shouldn't fall on just one person or group to live up to it.
I can't really get behind such a high level of political correctness.
Also, "People of Color" is often deemed a racially insensitive remark.
That's news to me. Maybe you're confusing that term with "colored people".
There's a difference?
EDIT
May be. But if I were black and made the exact same post, by the logic he presented, that term would be off limits, which still kinda proves the point I was aiming for.
That's news to me. Maybe you're confusing that term with "colored people".
There's a difference?
Actually, there is. One of them was traditionally used by white people to describe black people, the other is used by many people to identify many different minorities (in essence, a synonym for minorities).
EDIT: If I were to be offended by a seemingly innocuous name like "People of color", you wouldn't be out of line to ask why. If you asked the same about "colored people", I'd look at you like you were stupid.
I'm not giving liberals a pass here. I just don't think there are many people who start with the notion of an unassailable constitution and then through unflinching deduction come to inevitable conclusions. Call me a cynic.
I agree. But I think there should be more of them.
As for reinstituting slavery, no I don't think they would but they did fight tooth and claw over slavery and civil rights. By what logic does a Bork originalist deem the Civil Rights Amendment constitutional?
Well, technically speaking, the Civil Rights Act was on constitutionally shaky ground. It did the right thing in the wrong way.
Which raises an issue. Can a modern federalist state survive. Obviously some think so. I tend to think with present day communications tech etc., we should get rid of states altogether. What other country in the world has such disparate laws state to state (maybe Canada a little). I think states rights are a ridiculous atavistic notion given the modern way we conceive of the nation. That said, I think utilitarian arguments put forth by states rights people deserve consideration. It is possible that the state can get too big.
As for constitutional arguments, I tend to agree with you IF I was to go with an originalist pov. I'm just not sure the US would even be around right now if the people who interpreted the constitution were absolute originalists.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
It's just common courtesy. If you say something that you didn't mean to be racist but a person of color says "hey that's racist," you should say "I'm sorry, I won't say that again." Period. If you call a grown-ass black man "boy," then yeah. That's racist.
Even when when "a person of color" is incredibly wrong and raising the racism flag in error? Like with the Sambo fruit issue with the game Scribblenauts?
What is a "racism flag?" Is this the same thing as a "race card?" What does that term mean to you?
I can't really get behind such a high level of political correctness.
In what way is "political correctness" different from "treating people like people?"
Also, "People of Color" is often deemed a racially insensitive remark.
That's news to me. Maybe you're confusing that term with "colored people".
There's a difference?
Actually, there is. One of them was traditionally used by white people to describe black people, the other is used by many people to identify many different minorities (in essence, a synonym for minorities).
EDIT: If I were to be offended by a seemingly innocuous name like "People of color", you wouldn't be out of line to ask why. If you asked the same about "colored people", I'd look at you like you were stupid.
See, this, to me, is a perfect example of how ridiculous racism (and accusations of racism) can get. I mean, I understand the reason for the distinction in the terms, but it's silly.
I also find it somewhat humorous that most people have entirely forgotten what the "CP" in "NAACP" means.
See, this, to me, is a perfect example of how ridiculous racism (and accusations of racism) can get. I mean, I understand the reason for the distinction in the terms, but it's silly.
I also find it somewhat humorous that most people have entirely forgotten what the "CP" in "NAACP" means.
I can understand how the distinction would be difficult to grasp if English isn't your first language.
A good general rule is to use the term that the person to whom the term applies prefers and not fucking whine about it. I'm sure people know what NAACP stands for, they just know better than to call people "colored" because it's offensive.
But of course, your erudition. It is truly stunning. Are there other commonly misunderstood acronyms you'd like to share with us?
That's news to me. Maybe you're confusing that term with "colored people".
There's a difference?
Actually, there is. One of them was traditionally used by white people to describe black people, the other is used by many people to identify many different minorities (in essence, a synonym for minorities).
EDIT: If I were to be offended by a seemingly innocuous name like "People of color", you wouldn't be out of line to ask why. If you asked the same about "colored people", I'd look at you like you were stupid.
See, this, to me, is a perfect example of how ridiculous racism (and accusations of racism) can get. I mean, I understand the reason for the distinction in the terms, but it's silly.
I also find it somewhat humorous that most people have entirely forgotten what the "CP" in "NAACP" means.
Hey, you know what a great way to deal with all the wackiness is?
Call people what they've told you they are comfortable being called because you're not a big old cockbite.
I'll call the guy who delivers my mail Baron Munchausen if it makes him happy.
That's news to me. Maybe you're confusing that term with "colored people".
There's a difference?
Actually, there is. One of them was traditionally used by white people to describe black people, the other is used by many people to identify many different minorities (in essence, a synonym for minorities).
EDIT: If I were to be offended by a seemingly innocuous name like "People of color", you wouldn't be out of line to ask why. If you asked the same about "colored people", I'd look at you like you were stupid.
See, this, to me, is a perfect example of how ridiculous racism (and accusations of racism) can get. I mean, I understand the reason for the distinction in the terms, but it's silly.
I also find it somewhat humorous that most people have entirely forgotten what the "CP" in "NAACP" means.
Language changes over time! News at 11.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
That's news to me. Maybe you're confusing that term with "colored people".
There's a difference?
Actually, there is. One of them was traditionally used by white people to describe black people, the other is used by many people to identify many different minorities (in essence, a synonym for minorities).
EDIT: If I were to be offended by a seemingly innocuous name like "People of color", you wouldn't be out of line to ask why. If you asked the same about "colored people", I'd look at you like you were stupid.
See, this, to me, is a perfect example of how ridiculous racism (and accusations of racism) can get. I mean, I understand the reason for the distinction in the terms, but it's silly.
I also find it somewhat humorous that most people have entirely forgotten what the "CP" in "NAACP" means.
It is the intent not your interpretation that matters.
False. It's just common courtesy. If you say something that you didn't mean to be racist but a person of color says "hey that's racist," you should say "I'm sorry, I won't say that again." Period. If you call a grown-ass black man "boy," then yeah. That's racist.
States don't have rights. People have rights. And states are in the habit of passing laws that infringe on minority or otherwise disenfranchised people's rights more often than the federal government is (yes I know there are counterexamples, the Patriot Act for one is very obvious). The comparison between states' rights = racism gets drawn because the "states' rights" rhetoric came out in full force because racists fighting against civil rights for black people wanted to resist the imposition of federal antidiscrimination laws. But it's true, states' rights != racism. "States' rights" also provide a convenient excuse for homophobia and misogyny.
Ok well I think i should the U.S. government for using the word Czar. I am of Russian heritage and my family was surfs, aka SLAVES, for hundreds of years. And so you are telling me that people within a State should have no say in their laws? You go around becoming upset that people put their morals on you, whether on homosexuality or abortion or whatever, yet you refuse to allow people who have a solid majority of a state to live their lives as they wish. You are hypocritical. You are putting your morals upon them as well. You do not even believe in the right to be wrong. It is your way, or the highway. You would do well in an arbitrary socially totalitarian society, but that is exactly what you are arguing for anyway.
unitedshoes86 on
"It’s about those moments when you can feel the perfection of creation, the beauty of physics, the wonder of mathematics, you know?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
It is the intent not your interpretation that matters.
False. It's just common courtesy. If you say something that you didn't mean to be racist but a person of color says "hey that's racist," you should say "I'm sorry, I won't say that again." Period. If you call a grown-ass black man "boy," then yeah. That's racist.
States don't have rights. People have rights. And states are in the habit of passing laws that infringe on minority or otherwise disenfranchised people's rights more often than the federal government is (yes I know there are counterexamples, the Patriot Act for one is very obvious). The comparison between states' rights = racism gets drawn because the "states' rights" rhetoric came out in full force because racists fighting against civil rights for black people wanted to resist the imposition of federal antidiscrimination laws. But it's true, states' rights != racism. "States' rights" also provide a convenient excuse for homophobia and misogyny.
Ok well I think i should the U.S. government for using the word Czar. I am of Russian heritage and my family was surfs, aka SLAVES, for hundreds of years. And so you are telling me that people within a State should have no say in their laws? You go around becoming upset that people put their morals on you, whether on homosexuality or abortion or whatever, yet you refuse to allow people who have a solid majority of a state to live their lives as they wish. You are hypocritical. You are putting your morals upon them as well. You do not even believe in the right to be wrong. It is your way, or the highway. You would do well in an arbitrary socially totalitarian society, but that is exactly what you are arguing for anyway.
You should feel perfectly fine complaining about the usage of the word Czar. Send a letter to the effect to your congressman and to the president and make your case. If they feel it's reasonable, they'll respond. I think it's reasonable. The word "Czar" is kind of a weird way to refer to anyone in the US government, so I'm not attached to it.
It is the intent not your interpretation that matters.
False. It's just common courtesy. If you say something that you didn't mean to be racist but a person of color says "hey that's racist," you should say "I'm sorry, I won't say that again." Period. If you call a grown-ass black man "boy," then yeah. That's racist.
States don't have rights. People have rights. And states are in the habit of passing laws that infringe on minority or otherwise disenfranchised people's rights more often than the federal government is (yes I know there are counterexamples, the Patriot Act for one is very obvious). The comparison between states' rights = racism gets drawn because the "states' rights" rhetoric came out in full force because racists fighting against civil rights for black people wanted to resist the imposition of federal antidiscrimination laws. But it's true, states' rights != racism. "States' rights" also provide a convenient excuse for homophobia and misogyny.
Ok well I think i should the U.S. government for using the word Czar. I am of Russian heritage and my family was surfs, aka SLAVES, for hundreds of years. And so you are telling me that people within a State should have no say in their laws? You go around becoming upset that people put their morals on you, whether on homosexuality or abortion or whatever, yet you refuse to allow people who have a solid majority of a state to live their lives as they wish. You are hypocritical. You are putting your morals upon them as well. You do not even believe in the right to be wrong. It is your way, or the highway. You would do well in an arbitrary socially totalitarian society, but that is exactly what you are arguing for anyway.
When those morals and laws are born from ignorance and hate in order to segregate, disenfranchise, and are completely malevolent to groups of people, then yes I don't care how "hypocritical" I'm being.
Also, serfdom and slaves are not the same. If anything that was different, serfdom had a class system, slaves didn't. Not to mention serfs had basic human rights. Slaves do/did not.
It is the intent not your interpretation that matters.
False. It's just common courtesy. If you say something that you didn't mean to be racist but a person of color says "hey that's racist," you should say "I'm sorry, I won't say that again." Period. If you call a grown-ass black man "boy," then yeah. That's racist.
States don't have rights. People have rights. And states are in the habit of passing laws that infringe on minority or otherwise disenfranchised people's rights more often than the federal government is (yes I know there are counterexamples, the Patriot Act for one is very obvious). The comparison between states' rights = racism gets drawn because the "states' rights" rhetoric came out in full force because racists fighting against civil rights for black people wanted to resist the imposition of federal antidiscrimination laws. But it's true, states' rights != racism. "States' rights" also provide a convenient excuse for homophobia and misogyny.
Ok well I think i should the U.S. government for using the word Czar. I am of Russian heritage and my family was surfs, aka SLAVES, for hundreds of years. And so you are telling me that people within a State should have no say in their laws? You go around becoming upset that people put their morals on you, whether on homosexuality or abortion or whatever, yet you refuse to allow people who have a solid majority of a state to live their lives as they wish. You are hypocritical. You are putting your morals upon them as well. You do not even believe in the right to be wrong. It is your way, or the highway. You would do well in an arbitrary socially totalitarian society, but that is exactly what you are arguing for anyway.
Czar is a media thing. "Czars" have defined roles, limits, offices, and all that good stuff. They even have real titles.
MKR on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Ok well I think i should the U.S. government for using the word Czar. I am of Russian heritage and my family was surfs, aka SLAVES, for hundreds of years. And so you are telling me that people within a State should have no say in their laws? You go around becoming upset that people put their morals on you, whether on homosexuality or abortion or whatever, yet you refuse to allow people who have a solid majority of a state to live their lives as they wish. You are hypocritical. You are putting your morals upon them as well. You do not even believe in the right to be wrong. It is your way, or the highway. You would do well in an arbitrary socially totalitarian society, but that is exactly what you are arguing for anyway.
Wait a second
am I crazy or
are you saying that states should have the power to do things like disenfranchise black people, and calling it oppression when the federal government puts a stop to it?
It is the intent not your interpretation that matters.
False. It's just common courtesy. If you say something that you didn't mean to be racist but a person of color says "hey that's racist," you should say "I'm sorry, I won't say that again." Period. If you call a grown-ass black man "boy," then yeah. That's racist.
States don't have rights. People have rights. And states are in the habit of passing laws that infringe on minority or otherwise disenfranchised people's rights more often than the federal government is (yes I know there are counterexamples, the Patriot Act for one is very obvious). The comparison between states' rights = racism gets drawn because the "states' rights" rhetoric came out in full force because racists fighting against civil rights for black people wanted to resist the imposition of federal antidiscrimination laws. But it's true, states' rights != racism. "States' rights" also provide a convenient excuse for homophobia and misogyny.
Ok well I think i should the U.S. government for using the word Czar. I am of Russian heritage and my family was surfs, aka SLAVES, for hundreds of years. And so you are telling me that people within a State should have no say in their laws? You go around becoming upset that people put their morals on you, whether on homosexuality or abortion or whatever, yet you refuse to allow people who have a solid majority of a state to live their lives as they wish. You are hypocritical. You are putting your morals upon them as well. You do not even believe in the right to be wrong. It is your way, or the highway. You would do well in an arbitrary socially totalitarian society, but that is exactly what you are arguing for anyway.
When those morals and laws are born from ignorance and hate in order to segregate, disenfranchise, and are completely malevolent to groups of people, then yes I don't care how "hypocritical" I'm being.
Also, serfdom and slaves are not the same. If anything that was different, serfdom had a class system, slaves didn't. Not to mention serfs had basic human rights. Slaves do/did not.
read your history. what rights did serfs have? property? freedom of movement? self destiny? In fact throughout periods of times they had it even worse than slaves in America did. If there was not enough food just let them starve. And what was serfdom other than the segregation an disenfranchisement of a Noble class upon that of the commoners. Oh and guess what the Nobility considered the serfs as inferiors so maybe you can derive the rest otherwise ill spell it out... Your hypocrisy disgusts me, how could you be so racist. Treating one race with special treatment over another...
unitedshoes86 on
"It’s about those moments when you can feel the perfection of creation, the beauty of physics, the wonder of mathematics, you know?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Ok well I think i should the U.S. government for using the word Czar. I am of Russian heritage and my family was surfs, aka SLAVES, for hundreds of years. And so you are telling me that people within a State should have no say in their laws? You go around becoming upset that people put their morals on you, whether on homosexuality or abortion or whatever, yet you refuse to allow people who have a solid majority of a state to live their lives as they wish. You are hypocritical. You are putting your morals upon them as well. You do not even believe in the right to be wrong. It is your way, or the highway. You would do well in an arbitrary socially totalitarian society, but that is exactly what you are arguing for anyway.
Wait a second
am I crazy or
are you saying that states should have the power to do things like disenfranchise black people, and calling it oppression when the federal government puts a stop to it?
It was an extreme hyperbole, which is the only way I can stay sane arguing with the obtuse people here. States should have the right to do as they please so long as they do not violate the constitution.
unitedshoes86 on
"It’s about those moments when you can feel the perfection of creation, the beauty of physics, the wonder of mathematics, you know?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
It was an extreme hyperbole, which is the only way I can stay sane arguing with the obtuse people here. States should have the right to do as they please so long as they do not violate the constitution.
well
disenfranchising minorities violates the constitution.
Lenore's entire point about states' rights is that states often try to pass laws that are unconstitutional in their treatment of minorities.
I don't see why you are getting so upset about this.
It was an extreme hyperbole, which is the only way I can stay sane arguing with the obtuse people here. States should have the right to do as they please so long as they do not violate the constitution.
There are states currently that would quite likely make homosexual acts of any kind illegal or doing away with miscegenation. I'm fine with them not doing whatever they like.
It was an extreme hyperbole, which is the only way I can stay sane arguing with the obtuse people here. States should have the right to do as they please so long as they do not violate the constitution.
There are states currently that would quite likely make homosexual acts of any kind illegal or doing away with miscegenation. I'm fine with them not doing whatever they like.
It was an extreme hyperbole, which is the only way I can stay sane arguing with the obtuse people here. States should have the right to do as they please so long as they do not violate the constitution.
There are states currently that would quite likely make homosexual acts of any kind illegal or doing away with miscegenation. I'm fine with them not doing whatever they like.
I've never understood the idea that the state is somehow the perfect legislative unit. I mean, why not the county? Or the town? Or my house?
It was an extreme hyperbole, which is the only way I can stay sane arguing with the obtuse people here. States should have the right to do as they please so long as they do not violate the constitution.
There are states currently that would quite likely make homosexual acts of any kind illegal or doing away with miscegenation. I'm fine with them not doing whatever they like.
I've never understood the idea that the state is somehow the perfect legislative unit. I mean, why not the county? Or the town? Or my house?
All of them have the same potential and history of being as terrible as any other level.
Wow someone actually came in and used the CRA, with an authoritative tone, as evidence of the government's failure without actually having done even cursory research on the subject?
Now we need someone to come in and bring up how Obama nationalizing healthcare will make things worse, and then an objectivist to come in and argue for 30 pages before accidently admitting that he's a selfish prick that just hates people.
Wow someone actually came in and used the CRA, with an authoritative tone, as evidence of the government's failure without actually having done even cursory research on the subject?
Now we need someone to come in and bring up how Obama nationalizing healthcare will make things worse, and then an objectivist to come in and argue for 30 pages before accidently admitting that he's a selfish prick that just hates people.
I have great health care and having insurance companies make insane cash drives up my retirement fund, just hope I don't get sick.... good enough?
It is the intent not your interpretation that matters.
False. It's just common courtesy. If you say something that you didn't mean to be racist but a person of color says "hey that's racist," you should say "I'm sorry, I won't say that again." Period. If you call a grown-ass black man "boy," then yeah. That's racist.
States don't have rights. People have rights. And states are in the habit of passing laws that infringe on minority or otherwise disenfranchised people's rights more often than the federal government is (yes I know there are counterexamples, the Patriot Act for one is very obvious). The comparison between states' rights = racism gets drawn because the "states' rights" rhetoric came out in full force because racists fighting against civil rights for black people wanted to resist the imposition of federal antidiscrimination laws. But it's true, states' rights != racism. "States' rights" also provide a convenient excuse for homophobia and misogyny.
Ok well I think i should the U.S. government for using the word Czar. I am of Russian heritage and my family was surfs, aka SLAVES, for hundreds of years. And so you are telling me that people within a State should have no say in their laws? You go around becoming upset that people put their morals on you, whether on homosexuality or abortion or whatever, yet you refuse to allow people who have a solid majority of a state to live their lives as they wish. You are hypocritical. You are putting your morals upon them as well. You do not even believe in the right to be wrong. It is your way, or the highway. You would do well in an arbitrary socially totalitarian society, but that is exactly what you are arguing for anyway.
When those morals and laws are born from ignorance and hate in order to segregate, disenfranchise, and are completely malevolent to groups of people, then yes I don't care how "hypocritical" I'm being.
Also, serfdom and slaves are not the same. If anything that was different, serfdom had a class system, slaves didn't. Not to mention serfs had basic human rights. Slaves do/did not.
read your history. what rights did serfs have? property? freedom of movement? self destiny? In fact throughout periods of times they had it even worse than slaves in America did. If there was not enough food just let them starve. And what was serfdom other than the segregation an disenfranchisement of a Noble class upon that of the commoners. Oh and guess what the Nobility considered the serfs as inferiors so maybe you can derive the rest otherwise ill spell it out... Your hypocrisy disgusts me, how could you be so racist. Treating one race with special treatment over another...
I just think you're trolling with comments like these. Serfdom and slavery are not races. Neither are the Noble class and commoners.
Wow someone actually came in and used the CRA, with an authoritative tone, as evidence of the government's failure without actually having done even cursory research on the subject?
Now we need someone to come in and bring up how Obama nationalizing healthcare will make things worse, and then an objectivist to come in and argue for 30 pages before accidently admitting that he's a selfish prick that just hates people.
I have great health care and having insurance companies make insane cash drives up my retirement fund, just hope I don't get sick.... good enough?
You missed my point, not one person of any real authority has pushed for nationalized healthcare (as in, the government runs the hospitals/all insurance is government provided), but people keep saying obama's government is going to take over healthcare
I just think you're trolling with comments like these. Serfdom and slavery are not races. Neither are the Noble class and commoners.
Say what you will about shoes. At least he has an ethos.
I don't think he is a troll, more like outnumbered and frustrated
Thanks,
Yes I do get frustrated so I am going to kinda give a more clear meaning to what I have said.
What I mean by State Rights is in the most literal interpretation of word. I am a science guy I do not like to make thin connections between a historical even to something as literal as this. And yes I understand that State Rights during the civil war were a shell under which slavery was hidden. But this was also part of a larger picture, that included tariffs, foreign politics and a multitude of other reasons. Yes slavery was horrible, but State Rights, I believe, should not have a single reference to a relatively short period in history; considering the issue of States rights goes back to the very constitution.
This said I do believe in a strong unifying government to keep peace between states, set standards, maintain an army, have foreign relations, mail. etc. and interfere with society as little as possible. But a federal government that makes day to day intrusions into my life is too much.
I believe in a society based upon individual responsibility. This said I want to emphasis the need for true individualism. For to be an individual is to be autonomous, and to be autonomous is to be truly free. You are a being unto yourself. And my problem is that government steps in and tries to social engineer. The leading class, whomever that may be at the time, promote whatever belief system they believe to be in their best interest, they care for themselves and nothing more. This is not without exception, but the trend seems that power does corrupt. With a larger, more powerful, central government there is more concentrated power. And look at history, look at the men in power, even the idolized presidents of America. Are half these men good people? Have they really served the American people? Or was it entirely something else (sorry about the rhetorical questions)?
And the more the government steps into our lives the less room we have to grow as people. As humans we must suffer, it is our natural state. Needless suffering of course as avoidable as possible. But suffering is not a bad thing, its how we grow, and learn. And over time as we grow older we come to ourselves better. And any government that comes into my life, and make it "better", does not only scare me but it upsets me. Because this is my life, and if I fail or succeed I wish to know that it is because of me and only me. I will not let my free will be taken away. Can you not see that we as people are not the problem. We are driven against each other through class warfare, and jealousy. But really none of these things exist. Its about living your life, no matter how short or long, and most importantly to love. To love one another no matter "race, color, or creed". And if another person is bigoted, and selfish, how about we rather than than trying to force our beliefs on them, we instead lead by our example. If we all started doing this then society would gradually change of its own fruition.
Ok so i actually kept writing past here but realized it was already way to looong. So I don't know if this clarifies anything or just skews it more. But there is a great quote from CIV IV:
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.”
- Aristotle
unitedshoes86 on
"It’s about those moments when you can feel the perfection of creation, the beauty of physics, the wonder of mathematics, you know?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
And the more the government steps into our lives the less room we have to grow as people. As humans we must suffer, it is our natural state.
Isn't it way better to grow up in a country with a strong government than no government at all? I understand that government can and will be horrible but it isn't exactly like the opposite is going to be good. Also, is suffering the natural state of humans? I agree humans need challenges but suffering? It's not like the places in the world with the most suffering are moving our civilization forward. The people who invent things and find cures for disease and make the world a better place come disproportionately from places many on the right wing say are devalued and full of pussies etc. Other than great soccer players, what comes out of the slums of Rio?
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
There's a disproportionate correlation between fat fucking American republicans and the viewpoint that suffering is noble and ergo the government should stay out of their lives.
Somalia's great this time of year apparently.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
First note my word "world" I was speaking of foreign assistance. And really you think government is better at handling money than private org.? Really? I mean Really?! You should read some history, I suggest the great depression, or the gilded age, or any other countless examples. And yes I would rather have our society place our hands in that of private org. than that of the corrupt government that really cares little for the people but more for their own agendas. I am sorry this healthcare that you think is so great, is nothing more than part of a larger globalist agenda. Please go read something other than the one sided obama dribble.
You aren't winning any followers by using the phrase "You should read some ___"
It makes you come off as an elitist prick
Also, you honestly think that you would trust Halliburton over the military?
Posts
I could just as easily say that your argument seems like a bit of a red herring, given that the Civil War happened over one hundred years ago. I do hope you're not suggesting that some states would actually reinstitute slavery if given the option.
Historically, it seems that broad readings of the Constitution are more tactical as well (again, civil rights, abortion). The simple truth of the matter is that people read into the Constitution whatever they want to read into it.
I do not deny that I have my own biases, just like everyone else on this board. But I try to recognize and overcome those biases to read the text of those documents for what they actually say, rather than what I would like them to say.
No, I'm pretty sure I can. I can support States' Rights right up until they start misbehaving and then I support the Federal Government coming in and saying "Stop that you dumb fucks". Does that mean that I have to then be supportive of everything the Federal Government does that overrules the States? Of course not. Supporting one over the other in one instance doesn't mean you should do it in all instances.
I'm not giving liberals a pass here. I just don't think there are many people who start with the notion of an unassailable constitution and then through unflinching deduction come to inevitable conclusions. Call me a cynic.
As for reinstituting slavery, no I don't think they would but they did fight tooth and claw over slavery and civil rights. By what logic does a Bork originalist deem the Civil Rights Amendment constitutional?
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
The reality is that a balance needs to be struck between the two. Federal statute exists to give a baseline upon which the states can build. The entire point is that whatever the states do, they can't go below that line. Unfortunately, they frequently attempt to do just that.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
False. It's just common courtesy. If you say something that you didn't mean to be racist but a person of color says "hey that's racist," you should say "I'm sorry, I won't say that again." Period. If you call a grown-ass black man "boy," then yeah. That's racist.
States don't have rights. People have rights. And states are in the habit of passing laws that infringe on minority or otherwise disenfranchised people's rights more often than the federal government is (yes I know there are counterexamples, the Patriot Act for one is very obvious). The comparison between states' rights = racism gets drawn because the "states' rights" rhetoric came out in full force because racists fighting against civil rights for black people wanted to resist the imposition of federal antidiscrimination laws. But it's true, states' rights != racism. "States' rights" also provide a convenient excuse for homophobia and misogyny.
I agree. But I think there should be more of them.
Well, technically speaking, the Civil Rights Act was on constitutionally shaky ground. It did the right thing in the wrong way.
Even when when "a person of color" is incredibly wrong and raising the racism flag in error? Like with the Sambo fruit issue with the game Scribblenauts? It's common courtesy to not say things that you know to be racially insensitive. It's also common courtesy to not raise a stink when you know something was said in a completely innocent and innocuous way. That's courtesy that everyone can afford and it shouldn't fall on just one person or group to live up to it.
I can't really get behind such a high level of political correctness.
Also, "People of Color" is often deemed a racially insensitive remark.
There's a difference?
EDIT
May be. But if I were black and made the exact same post, by the logic he presented, that term would be off limits, which still kinda proves the point I was aiming for.
Actually, there is. One of them was traditionally used by white people to describe black people, the other is used by many people to identify many different minorities (in essence, a synonym for minorities).
EDIT: If I were to be offended by a seemingly innocuous name like "People of color", you wouldn't be out of line to ask why. If you asked the same about "colored people", I'd look at you like you were stupid.
Which raises an issue. Can a modern federalist state survive. Obviously some think so. I tend to think with present day communications tech etc., we should get rid of states altogether. What other country in the world has such disparate laws state to state (maybe Canada a little). I think states rights are a ridiculous atavistic notion given the modern way we conceive of the nation. That said, I think utilitarian arguments put forth by states rights people deserve consideration. It is possible that the state can get too big.
As for constitutional arguments, I tend to agree with you IF I was to go with an originalist pov. I'm just not sure the US would even be around right now if the people who interpreted the constitution were absolute originalists.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
In what way is "political correctness" different from "treating people like people?"
By whom?
See, this, to me, is a perfect example of how ridiculous racism (and accusations of racism) can get. I mean, I understand the reason for the distinction in the terms, but it's silly.
I also find it somewhat humorous that most people have entirely forgotten what the "CP" in "NAACP" means.
I can understand how the distinction would be difficult to grasp if English isn't your first language.
A good general rule is to use the term that the person to whom the term applies prefers and not fucking whine about it. I'm sure people know what NAACP stands for, they just know better than to call people "colored" because it's offensive.
But of course, your erudition. It is truly stunning. Are there other commonly misunderstood acronyms you'd like to share with us?
Hey, you know what a great way to deal with all the wackiness is?
Call people what they've told you they are comfortable being called because you're not a big old cockbite.
I'll call the guy who delivers my mail Baron Munchausen if it makes him happy.
Language changes over time! News at 11.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Ok well I think i should the U.S. government for using the word Czar. I am of Russian heritage and my family was surfs, aka SLAVES, for hundreds of years. And so you are telling me that people within a State should have no say in their laws? You go around becoming upset that people put their morals on you, whether on homosexuality or abortion or whatever, yet you refuse to allow people who have a solid majority of a state to live their lives as they wish. You are hypocritical. You are putting your morals upon them as well. You do not even believe in the right to be wrong. It is your way, or the highway. You would do well in an arbitrary socially totalitarian society, but that is exactly what you are arguing for anyway.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
You should feel perfectly fine complaining about the usage of the word Czar. Send a letter to the effect to your congressman and to the president and make your case. If they feel it's reasonable, they'll respond. I think it's reasonable. The word "Czar" is kind of a weird way to refer to anyone in the US government, so I'm not attached to it.
When those morals and laws are born from ignorance and hate in order to segregate, disenfranchise, and are completely malevolent to groups of people, then yes I don't care how "hypocritical" I'm being.
Also, serfdom and slaves are not the same. If anything that was different, serfdom had a class system, slaves didn't. Not to mention serfs had basic human rights. Slaves do/did not.
Czar is a media thing. "Czars" have defined roles, limits, offices, and all that good stuff. They even have real titles.
Wait a second
am I crazy or
are you saying that states should have the power to do things like disenfranchise black people, and calling it oppression when the federal government puts a stop to it?
read your history. what rights did serfs have? property? freedom of movement? self destiny? In fact throughout periods of times they had it even worse than slaves in America did. If there was not enough food just let them starve. And what was serfdom other than the segregation an disenfranchisement of a Noble class upon that of the commoners. Oh and guess what the Nobility considered the serfs as inferiors so maybe you can derive the rest otherwise ill spell it out... Your hypocrisy disgusts me, how could you be so racist. Treating one race with special treatment over another...
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
It was an extreme hyperbole, which is the only way I can stay sane arguing with the obtuse people here. States should have the right to do as they please so long as they do not violate the constitution.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
well
disenfranchising minorities violates the constitution.
Lenore's entire point about states' rights is that states often try to pass laws that are unconstitutional in their treatment of minorities.
I don't see why you are getting so upset about this.
There are states currently that would quite likely make homosexual acts of any kind illegal or doing away with miscegenation. I'm fine with them not doing whatever they like.
I think he's calling us homosexual.
I've never understood the idea that the state is somehow the perfect legislative unit. I mean, why not the county? Or the town? Or my house?
All of them have the same potential and history of being as terrible as any other level.
Now we need someone to come in and bring up how Obama nationalizing healthcare will make things worse, and then an objectivist to come in and argue for 30 pages before accidently admitting that he's a selfish prick that just hates people.
I have great health care and having insurance companies make insane cash drives up my retirement fund, just hope I don't get sick.... good enough?
I just think you're trolling with comments like these. Serfdom and slavery are not races. Neither are the Noble class and commoners.
You missed my point, not one person of any real authority has pushed for nationalized healthcare (as in, the government runs the hospitals/all insurance is government provided), but people keep saying obama's government is going to take over healthcare
Say what you will about shoes. At least he has an ethos.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Thanks,
Yes I do get frustrated so I am going to kinda give a more clear meaning to what I have said.
What I mean by State Rights is in the most literal interpretation of word. I am a science guy I do not like to make thin connections between a historical even to something as literal as this. And yes I understand that State Rights during the civil war were a shell under which slavery was hidden. But this was also part of a larger picture, that included tariffs, foreign politics and a multitude of other reasons. Yes slavery was horrible, but State Rights, I believe, should not have a single reference to a relatively short period in history; considering the issue of States rights goes back to the very constitution.
This said I do believe in a strong unifying government to keep peace between states, set standards, maintain an army, have foreign relations, mail. etc. and interfere with society as little as possible. But a federal government that makes day to day intrusions into my life is too much.
I believe in a society based upon individual responsibility. This said I want to emphasis the need for true individualism. For to be an individual is to be autonomous, and to be autonomous is to be truly free. You are a being unto yourself. And my problem is that government steps in and tries to social engineer. The leading class, whomever that may be at the time, promote whatever belief system they believe to be in their best interest, they care for themselves and nothing more. This is not without exception, but the trend seems that power does corrupt. With a larger, more powerful, central government there is more concentrated power. And look at history, look at the men in power, even the idolized presidents of America. Are half these men good people? Have they really served the American people? Or was it entirely something else (sorry about the rhetorical questions)?
And the more the government steps into our lives the less room we have to grow as people. As humans we must suffer, it is our natural state. Needless suffering of course as avoidable as possible. But suffering is not a bad thing, its how we grow, and learn. And over time as we grow older we come to ourselves better. And any government that comes into my life, and make it "better", does not only scare me but it upsets me. Because this is my life, and if I fail or succeed I wish to know that it is because of me and only me. I will not let my free will be taken away. Can you not see that we as people are not the problem. We are driven against each other through class warfare, and jealousy. But really none of these things exist. Its about living your life, no matter how short or long, and most importantly to love. To love one another no matter "race, color, or creed". And if another person is bigoted, and selfish, how about we rather than than trying to force our beliefs on them, we instead lead by our example. If we all started doing this then society would gradually change of its own fruition.
Ok so i actually kept writing past here but realized it was already way to looong. So I don't know if this clarifies anything or just skews it more. But there is a great quote from CIV IV:
“I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.”
- Aristotle
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Isn't it way better to grow up in a country with a strong government than no government at all? I understand that government can and will be horrible but it isn't exactly like the opposite is going to be good. Also, is suffering the natural state of humans? I agree humans need challenges but suffering? It's not like the places in the world with the most suffering are moving our civilization forward. The people who invent things and find cures for disease and make the world a better place come disproportionately from places many on the right wing say are devalued and full of pussies etc. Other than great soccer players, what comes out of the slums of Rio?
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Somalia's great this time of year apparently.
You aren't winning any followers by using the phrase "You should read some ___"
It makes you come off as an elitist prick
Also, you honestly think that you would trust Halliburton over the military?
...
Except for all the other ones.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube