[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31966574]Whether or not you thought it was a good idea to be in NATO, the intervention began whilst we were a member, so we had to participate.[/QUOTE]
What were those "entangling alliances" Jefferson warned us about again...
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31967412]Because the queen doesn't already have everything under the fucking sun. Whatever he gave her, she'd have two of.
Ridge, I really never noticed just how fucking stupid of a complaint that is. Do you know how rich she is? What can he give her that will mean anything in the face of that wealth?[/QUOTE]
Ridge has said a lot of really stupid things.
Hope and Change! Yes we can!
After reading some of the Wikipedia article, Ron Paul doesn't look like that much of a nutjob. Actually I think he might be a very good step, a bridge so to speak, towards less nutty candidates.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;31980708]After reading some of the Wikipedia article, Ron Paul doesn't look like that much of a nutjob. Actually I think he might be a very good step, a bridge so to speak, towards less nutty candidates.[/QUOTE]
No he doesn't want absolute federal control over social issues are you crazy or just evil
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;31985394]No he doesn't want absolute federal control over social issues are you crazy or just evil[/QUOTE]
He wants to get rid of the income tax, that brings in almost 50% of all federal revenue. That means we won't have enough money for pretty much any of our social services, and even if the states raise the state income tax to compensate, some won't and those who need it won't get it.
Ron Paul will ruin us.
[editline]28th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;31980708]After reading some of the Wikipedia article, Ron Paul doesn't look like that much of a nutjob.[/QUOTE]
What have you been reading, and what do you agree with him on other than decriminalization of drug possession and getting out of wars?
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;31985394]No he doesn't want absolute federal control over social issues are you crazy or just evil[/QUOTE]
I understand you are British, and are used to the government having it's eye in your windows all the time, but maybe, just maybe, the government doesn't need all powerful control over every aspect of your life?
[QUOTE=Ridge;31988752]I understand you are British, and are used to the government having it's eye in your windows all the time[/QUOTE]
Are you just that misinformed, or what?
[QUOTE=Ridge;31988752]I understand you are British, and are used to the government having it's eye in your windows all the time, but maybe, just maybe, the government doesn't need all powerful control over every aspect of your life?[/QUOTE]
I think it's reasonable to expect the government to enforce anti-discrimination laws and ensure equal civil rights for everyone but I'm not American so maybe those are bad things and your way of doing things is actually the right one I don't know
[QUOTE=Zeke129;31989388]I think it's reasonable to expect the government to enforce anti-discrimination laws and ensure equal civil rights for everyone but I'm not American so maybe those are bad things and your way of doing things is actually the right one I don't know[/QUOTE]
So basically this:
[quote=Bizarro Ridge]I understand you are American, and are used to bigots stepping on your rights, but maybe, just maybe, the government has a role to play in ensuring your basic human rights?[/quote]
Maybe the government shouldn't have a say in whether or not gays can marry? The government doesn't decide whether or not a man or woman can marry. It's only in question because of bullshit religious fundamentalists.
[QUOTE=Ridge;31989482]Maybe the government shouldn't have a say in whether or not gays can marry? The government doesn't decide whether or not a man or woman can marry. It's only in question because of bullshit religious fundamentalists.[/QUOTE]
The government has to ensure that it's fair for homosexuals and trans individuals because marriage is already tied to financial benefits. It isn't solely a religious institution, and it'll be loads easier to just allow homosexuals to marry than it will to re-write the laws of marriage entirely.
And then Palin-Bachmann gets elected and declares all gay marriage illegal. Good job giving the feds full control over your life.
they won't get elected
Then there is a backlash and 4 years later a Democrat is elected and makes it legal.
Federal control over social issues is a double edged sword as Ridge points out.
Yeah, you can get sweeping reform for everything you want. But what if Congress votes not in favor of your beliefs? Suddenly the federal laws that override state laws that you praised and championed so much are turned on you.
Letting states decide is a safer method. Yes, some states are bound to vote against what you believe in, but there will be others that vote for it. And if you have any sense of history, ideas eventually spread like a domino effect. Eventually those states that vote against you will change for the better.
That is why state's rights are better than sweeping federal reform. The feds could get everything done quicker but if it's goes against you, it's still permanent and you're fucked.
so what about topics such as slavery and women's suffrage and such? yeah you had some states, but it wasn't until the federal government stepped in and forced the change that you really saw any progress.
yes the federal govt could work against you, but there are a lot of protections against that and it's hardly permanent. see: prohibition.
[QUOTE=Ridge;31989482]Maybe the government shouldn't have a say in whether or not gays can marry? The government doesn't decide whether or not a man or woman can marry. It's only in question because of bullshit religious fundamentalists.[/QUOTE]
Well the government has to either state it's legal or illegal, they can't just step away from the issue because currently it's illegal in most states
[QUOTE=Ridge;31988752]I understand you are British, and are used to the government having it's eye in your windows all the time, but maybe, just maybe, the government doesn't need all powerful control over every aspect of your life?[/QUOTE]
This post leaves me to make the most likely accurate prediction that Ridge doesn't even know where Great Britain is on the map.
Or more than six countries in the world: AMERICA! and 5 other of them third world commie mooslim lands
[editline]28th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;31989614]And then Palin-Bachmann gets elected and declares all gay marriage illegal. Good job giving the feds full control over your life.[/QUOTE]
And then Ron Paul will be elected and let the states make Gay Marriage illegal. Your point?
[editline]28th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31990168]Federal control over social issues is a double edged sword as Ridge points out.
Yeah, you can get sweeping reform for everything you want. But what if Congress votes not in favor of your beliefs? Suddenly the federal laws that override state laws that you praised and championed so much are turned on you.
Letting states decide is a safer method. Yes, some states are bound to vote against what you believe in, but there will be others that vote for it. And if you have any sense of history, ideas eventually spread like a domino effect. Eventually those states that vote against you will change for the better.
That is why state's rights are better than sweeping federal reform. The feds could get everything done quicker but if it's goes against you, it's still permanent and you're fucked.[/QUOTE]
You know a state government is still the government right? They are still bound under constitutional law. You people have to stop pretending that attaching states rights to anything doesn't make it right.
State rights work for some things that will make or break the people of a states, like agriculture laws or shit like that. But everything else is just stupid to let the states decide rather than the federal government.
If the Federal government is messed up, the people who voted them in probably also voted in similar ones.
[editline]28th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;31990346]Well the government has to either state it's legal or illegal, they can't just step away from the issue because currently it's illegal in most states[/QUOTE]
Whether they fucking like it or not, if it's a constitutional issue, the states have ZERO say in this matter and for good reason.
[QUOTE=amute;31990756]
You know a state government is still the government right? They are still bound under constitutional law. You people have to stop pretending that attaching states rights to anything doesn't make it right.[/QUOTE]
1. You completely missed my point.
2. 10th Amendment
okay, what about the 10th? it's already in place and being used and constitutional law trumps anything that doesn't fall under it. I don't see why you're concerned with state rights all of a sudden.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31990168]But what if Congress votes not in favor of your beliefs?[/QUOTE]Simple; if my representative doesn't vote in favour of human rights then he won't get my vote by the next election.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;31991532]Simple; if my representative doesn't vote in favour of human rights then he won't get my vote by the next election.[/QUOTE]
Except if he voted, it's already done and over with. He may not see his next term, but the law he's voted on will still go into effect.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31991641]Except if he voted, it's already done and over with. He may not see his next term, but the law he's voted on will still go into effect.[/QUOTE]
You do realise the same shit can and does happen on both ends, right?
i don't think we should judge what rights a state gets on hypothetical scenarios.
saying "well gee they could do something you don't like and then it's a law" is such a silly way of thinking about it.
[QUOTE=person11;31989757]Then there is a backlash and 4 years later a Democrat is elected and makes it legal.[/QUOTE]
Then there is a backlash and 4 years later a Republican is elected and makes it illegal.
Then there is a backlash and 4 years later a Democrat is elected and makes it legal.
Then there is a backlash and...
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;31992023]Then there is a backlash and 4 years later a Republican is elected and makes it illegal.
Then there is a backlash and 4 years later a Democrat is elected and makes it legal.
Then there is a backlash and...[/QUOTE]
dumb hypothetical that doesn't matter
has slavery/women's suffrage been repealed?
unfunny joke
[QUOTE=amute;31991759]You do realise the same shit can and does happen on both ends, right?[/QUOTE]
You do realize this discussion is irrelevant to political parties, right?
[editline]28th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;31991976]saying "well gee they could do something you don't like and then it's a law" is such a silly way of thinking about it.[/QUOTE]
What's your opinion on gun ownership?
[QUOTE=Ridge;31992631]What's your opinion on gun ownership?[/QUOTE]
Well here we go.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
