Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

Who Wants More Independent State Laws?


More Independence
  45% (10)
More Federal Equality.
  54% (12)


Total Votes : 22
(last vote on : 4/2/2012 7:21:59 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message


MrBukani -> Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (3/30/2012 11:40:55 AM)

Just wondering.
In Europe we just bonded and want to seperate more.
How about our american friends.
More independence.
Or not.
Like one state say california can legalize cannabis.
And Texas can say no more immigrants.
What you say.
More independence or less?




Marc2b -> RE: Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (3/30/2012 11:51:09 AM)

I would just like to see us actually live up to the Constitution... so I guess that would be more since the trend has been more and more federal control.

Issues like abortion, healthcare, education, marijuana, among others, should be left to the States. Immigration, however, would not be one of them.




MrBukani -> RE: Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (3/30/2012 11:53:41 AM)

Good point Marc, thats probably why I was so blunt mentioning it.




mnottertail -> RE: Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (3/30/2012 12:00:47 PM)

Ja, we have been at that fight since our inception, and the glueing together of this country.

Regional differences have led to one civil war, and giving into every idiotic idea out there will lead to more.





MrBukani -> RE: Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (3/30/2012 12:05:19 PM)

Why?
We wanna legalize pot in Holland.
Most of us anyway, if asked and allowed to a referendum.
Why not have prostitution in Nevada and not Texas.
That seems reasonable to me.




Moonhead -> RE: Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (3/30/2012 12:16:55 PM)

I thought pot was legal in chunks of the Netherlands.
Isn't that most of the tourism through Amsterdam, for a start?




MrBukani -> RE: Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (3/30/2012 12:31:51 PM)

No we call it condoned
Its legal to posses less then an ounce.
Its illegal to sell except its condoned to sell it in coffeeshops.
Not legal but its allowed.
Just like a cop can judge on SYG.
Allowed to let it slide.
Not criminal.
Normalized
'Regulated
constitutionalized.

GEDOGEN

We have a gedoog kabinet now
A condoning cabinet without full support of the majority.
A minority government allowed to rule by a third out not governing.
Cool aye?
Constitutions.




Moonhead -> RE: Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (3/30/2012 12:34:18 PM)

Right. I'd thought it was actually legalised rather than just ignored to bring in the desperate Brit stoners. My mistake.




Iamsemisweet -> RE: Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (3/30/2012 12:37:01 PM)

Like it or not, I imagine we are going to see increased federalization, as the states get more squeezed for money to provide even the most basic services. As it is, there are city, county, state and federal governments, all of which take money to operate. Why do we need all these levels?
Just my radical two cents




Winterapple -> RE: Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (3/30/2012 12:38:50 PM)

FR
States rights kept slavery legal(even as
it became less and less economically
feasible) led to a civil war and kept
Jim Crow intact a hundred years after
the war ended.
State rights basically suck especially
where civil rights are brought into
question. That things like gay marriage
and the death penalty should be
up to the individual states is nuts.
Make one legal and the other illegal
for all fifty states. The idea that gay
couples are being denied a basic civil
right because of the whims and bigotry
of cracker statehouses is obcene.
There's stuff in life you don't leave
to the masses to decide upon.
I put abortion and immigration in
that category as well.
Things like pot, prostitution are different
in that they aren't civil rights. I do support
dicriminalzation of pot and prostitution
to various degrees and states could have
a larger voice in that sort of thing as
it does with alcohol and gambling.




MrBukani -> RE: Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (3/30/2012 12:39:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Like it or not, I imagine we are going to see increased federalization, as the states get more squeezed for money to provide even the most basic services. As it is, there are city, county, state and federal governments, all of which take money to operate. Why do we need all these levels?
Just my radical two cents

Yes I voted independence but you are right here.
It was just a bloody thought hotdamnit.[:D]




Moonhead -> RE: Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (3/30/2012 12:40:22 PM)

You need two levels because State governments have a horror of sending money to Washington (hoch-ptooie!) that could be spent on domestic pork barrelling.
(And of course, because there's nowhere for the State government to get a huge handout from without the federal system, but they don't seem to like to talk about that...)




DesideriScuri -> RE: Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (3/30/2012 1:32:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani
Just wondering.
In Europe we just bonded and want to seperate more.
How about our american friends.
More independence.
Or not.
Like one state say california can legalize cannabis.
And Texas can say no more immigrants.
What you say.
More independence or less?


Look at what's going in the US right now. The SCOTUS is debating on whether the MedicAid expansion is Constitutional or not. Even with the Federal Government initially funding the expansion at 100%, it's still being questioned as to whether or not it's an overstep of the Federal Government to force and increase in a State-run program.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-usa-court-roberts-idUSBRE82S1EE20120329

Very interesting read. According to Chief Justice Roberts, the current case in front of the court is mostly about whether or not there is a limit on Federal Authority. There has even been questioning about the limit of Congress and the Federal Government if Citizens can be forced to buy insurance.

I voted for more State authority (I know, shocking, right?). But, I am of the opinion that more Federal Authority equality would necessarily mean more State independence.




Moonhead -> RE: Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (3/30/2012 1:40:43 PM)

Why are you suddenly bitching about the limits of federal authority with a Democrat Kenyan in office?
You had no problem with absurd and unconstitutional extensions of federal government when there was a Republican cracker with a fake accent in the white house.
Is is because he is black?




DesideriScuri -> RE: Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (3/30/2012 2:10:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
Why are you suddenly bitching about the limits of federal authority with a Democrat Kenyan in office?
You had no problem with absurd and unconstitutional extensions of federal government when there was a Republican cracker with a fake accent in the white house.
Is is because he is black?


Nope. I disagree with his white half, too. [:D]

And, I have no problem admitting that prior to 2005, I voted R simply because they seemed like they represented me more. I didn't pay attention at all to politics. Then, I heard Glenn Beck (yeah, go ahead). Listening to him rail against the Democrats AND the Republicans brought me out of my self-imposed political slumber. Of course, I didn't believe him when he talked about how bad the R's were being. Then, I started reading more of our Founding, and checking up on the things Beck was saying. The more I read (and, yeah, I read the biased things like the DoI, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, etc.), the more clear things became. The Patriot Act was pointed out to be a horrible infringement on personal liberty. Dead on accurate. I was still skeptical of the R's being that bad. Spring of 2008 and the bailout of Bear Stearns was my final wake up call.

Since I wasn't lifestyle until December '11 and wasn't even on here until February, I find it amazing that you have come to the conclusion that I didn't have any problem with government expansion under Bush.




Moonhead -> RE: Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (3/30/2012 2:26:09 PM)

Mostly, that's because none of the other neocon cheerleaders on here appear to have any problem with Bush shitting on the constitution and using the bill of rights to wipe his arse for the eight years he was in office.
(Congratulations on your new lifestyle, though.)




DesideriScuri -> RE: Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (3/30/2012 7:46:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
Mostly, that's because none of the other neocon cheerleaders on here appear to have any problem with Bush shitting on the constitution and using the bill of rights to wipe his arse for the eight years he was in office.
(Congratulations on your new lifestyle, though.)


Why is it you only rail against Bush? Can you not see that Obama isn't actually any better than Bush? Almost all the things the D's railed against Bush for, Obama is still doing. The D's owned Congress for Bush's last 2 years in office. They could have cut funding, or done damn near anything they wanted to stop the money train. Did they? No. They just bitched about it. Then, Obama takes office and the D's get their near-Super Majorities and what happens? Not a whole helluva lot. Has Guantanamo Bay been closed? Uh, nope. Have we stopped torturing? Can't guarantee it, but if we are, the media ain't saying anything (and I don't think we are anyway). We haven't closed the ridiculous spending. Actually, we haven't slowed the increase of spending..lol

The deficits are still huge, and are projected to be that way for years. Revenues are still high (which apparently weren't decimated by the Bush Tax Cuts). It absolutely is the spending. I'm pissed that Bush ran up spending as much as he did. I'm even more pissed at Obama for continuing that because of all the bile and hatred spewed by the D's against Bush's meteoric spending increases.








joether -> RE: Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (3/31/2012 12:42:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
Mostly, that's because none of the other neocon cheerleaders on here appear to have any problem with Bush shitting on the constitution and using the bill of rights to wipe his arse for the eight years he was in office.
(Congratulations on your new lifestyle, though.)

Why is it you only rail against Bush? Can you not see that Obama isn't actually any better than Bush? Almost all the things the D's railed against Bush for, Obama is still doing. The D's owned Congress for Bush's last 2 years in office. They could have cut funding, or done damn near anything they wanted to stop the money train. Did they? No. They just bitched about it. Then, Obama takes office and the D's get their near-Super Majorities and what happens? Not a whole helluva lot. Has Guantanamo Bay been closed? Uh, nope. Have we stopped torturing? Can't guarantee it, but if we are, the media ain't saying anything (and I don't think we are anyway). We haven't closed the ridiculous spending. Actually, we haven't slowed the increase of spending..lol

The deficits are still huge, and are projected to be that way for years. Revenues are still high (which apparently weren't decimated by the Bush Tax Cuts). It absolutely is the spending. I'm pissed that Bush ran up spending as much as he did. I'm even more pissed at Obama for continuing that because of all the bile and hatred spewed by the D's against Bush's meteoric spending increases.


If we dropped the Bush Era Tax Cuts, and closed up those tax loopholes that allow the very rich to pay less in taxes as a percentage than middle class America, you would see the deficit drain to nothing and *GASP* witness a surplus. The last three years of the Clinton Administration saw a surplus in each year (the final one being the largest). We as a country were making serious headway on eliminating the debt. Within one year of Bush coming to office, that surplus was gone and a deficit was in place for the budget. The debt which was being removed quickly was now rising quickly. This followed every year during the 'good times' of the economy. Towards the end of the Bush Administration, the economy started to explode and go down hill towards a depression. Most industries were in free fall! So yes, Mr. Obama took over the economic problems of this country created by 'fiscal conservatives' who happily voted for McCain (who choose to deal with the failing economy by ignoring it). Plus we as a country got dragged in to Iraq for those 'Massive Stockpiles' of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. After blowing $3 Trillion we realize that White House was not truthful with us in any regard. By the time Mr. Obama took office, that war costed us $4 Trillion. Where the hell was the accountibility and responsibility of all those 'fiscal conservatives'? No where on planet Earth!

If the President had listen to Republicans in 2009, this country would have been in a deep depression similar to 1929. But he decided on a course of action which was not popular. He could have taken the popular idea, and witness another depression (to whom the Republicans would happily blame the whole thing on him). So the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was pushed through Congress. Anyone that actually read it (that's about 8% of the nation) would understand what the bill was set up to do: Stop the Free Fall. Actually it had the added effect of not just stopping the free fall, or leveling out industries but actually putting some on the road to recovery. There are plenty of charts on the web that show how the Bush Administration lose jobs at a staggering rate. Did any conservatives blame him for that? Nope! When jobs were being lost under Obama's administration, did those same conservative blame him? HELLYA! The truth here, is that conservatives don't hold their own elected officals to even 1/100th the responsibility and accountibility as they rail at President Obama on an hourly basis! So each proceeding quarter found the amount of jobs lost under Obama dimished. Until finally we had positive jobs being created! Which is good for America and bad for Republicans (as they DID become 'The Party of No!').

The economy contuines to get better. Americans are finding jobs a bit easier now than under the Bush Administration. And we are able to fix some of the problems that landed this nation in that hole in the first place (mainly restoring regulations removed during the Bush Admin.). You can complain and bitch all you want DS; but the people you'll vote for in the election next fall are the folks that got this nation into so many problems to begin with. Recall those 'Stem Cell Research' that came up during the Bush Administration? How conservatives were to dumb to realize that those stem cells had absolutely no chance of becoming human, but that we should ban the research nationwide all the same? Yeah, other countries put money into that research and pulled ahead of the nation. Do we see/hear any of you conservatives take ownership for allowing the nation to fall behind on scientific research? Of courese not! The day conservatives hold themselves and their elected officals to the same level of accountibility and responsibility as they slam President Obama on an hourly basis, is not likely to happen in my lifetime!

How much does it cost us taxpayers, DS, for a bill to reach the US House of Representatives, pass, and only to fail in the US Senate because House Republicans care not to pass something both sides would agree to, but for political points (to see they 'passed' the stuff they promised)? Because the House Republicans have done this a few hundred times. I'd imagine its costing us quite a bit of money to allow the Republicans to massage their ego's and accomplish nothing. Funny.....Where are all those fiscal conservatives that bitch about President Obama doing something? They're to busy figuring out how to blame Obama for wasting $10 million on war veteran's health coverage to notice money being wasted by House Republicans. You want to be taken seriously? Hold your elected officals that you both vote and cheer for to TWICE the accountibility and responsibility as you bash Mr. Obama and the Democrats.




Moonhead -> RE: Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (3/31/2012 5:12:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Why is it you only rail against Bush? Can you not see that Obama isn't actually any better than Bush?

You're missing the main difference between teh Kenyan and the Chimp: teh Kenyan actually won the election back in '08, whereas Bush was allowed to take power despite losing Florida in '00. Given that, all of this whining about teh Kenyan flouting the constitution is not merely pathetic, but deeply hilarious as well...




Fightdirecto -> RE: Who Wants More Independent State Laws? (3/31/2012 7:16:26 AM)

Americans have been fighting a contradiction since the first colonists arrived in Virginia in 1607 - individualism versus conformity.

We give lip service to individualism - but we want everyone to act just like us, think just like us, dress just like us, worship (or not worship) just like us, speak the same language that we do, etc.

This conflict and contradiction is the source of almost every past, present and possibly future problem in American society.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625