|
On January 06 2012 23:51 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 23:37 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On January 06 2012 23:11 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 20:37 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On January 06 2012 14:02 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 13:37 Risen wrote:
I'm a little confused by some politicians' views on things. How many states do you really think will actually pass legislation banning things like birth control, pornography, gay marriage, etc. ((All these things increase standards of living in the places they are legal))
If you live in a very conservative state, and these things are banned awesome. That's your right as a state, but have you thought about the economic impact? It wouldn't be a short-term impact, but a long-term impact. People naturally want to live in an area with a higher standard of living, so if you pass legislation barring these things people will move out of your state. Less tax revenue leads to a shitty state. OR what could happen, is the country will become even more polarized.
It's proven in studies that more educated people support these basic SoL increases. What you'll eventually have is an uneducated mass of states and a highly educated mass of states both vying for national power. Bad news imo. None of this stuff will affect me directly, I live in Nevada, I'm not going to have to worry about these things passing, but it still seems pretty shitty when you look at the direction national discourse is taking.
I mean, Santorum as a serious candidate Iowa? Santorum: "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." What the hell? I'm a white male, ergo I'm almost guaranteed to be a conservative, and I can say without a doubt that isn't how traditional conservatives view the world. Traditional Christians? Probably a lot closer to the mark. Traditional conservatives to me means limited government, socially and fiscally.
Anywho, NDAA passing means I won't be voting for the Obama-llama and I can't bring myself to vote for Romney at the moment... so another write-in year, I guess. There are plenty of places with terrible living conditions and terrible education, and those are the same states that will pass such laws. Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. And no, people tend not to think about economic impact when it comes to social issues, even though they usually have massive economic impact. I mean gay marriage certainly would have positive economic impact, but I rarely hear about people using it as an argument.
Just to clarify, conservatism isn't about limited government, but rather a continuation and protection of traditional programs and culture. At this point, conservatism in the U.S. would be more along the lines of prohibiting gay marriage, upholding SS and Medicare, rolling back the healthcare legislation, celebrating judeo-christian values, and keeping a strong military.
May I just say that I'm really sick of this "Judeo-Christian" bullshit. It's like you want to say how Christian America should be but you don't want to sound anti-semetic because Jews get this weird exception clause. Judeo-Christian values is bull. None of the founders were Jewish, nearly all of them were secularists, and many of them were Deists. Where the hell did we get Judeo- from? It's a secular country and always has been. Why not Monotheist values? Oh right, we want to differentiate from those muslims, don't we? Because the Old testament is the Torah. The entire bible is about Jews. Gods chosen people are the Jews. Jesus is the king of the Jews (according to christians). Everywhere you read in the bible it's always about the Jews. The only difference between Jews and Christians is christians say Jesus is the prophesied savor and king of the Jews (and other minor details that have to do with Jesus, like saying you can eat pork because methods of curing the meat had been discovered). That difference is enough to separate the two religions (also the fact that many jews and jewish by decent, while most christians are nonjewish). They created a secular government, for a religious people. Here is a John Steward interview which might interest you. And you can always go to his website where he has his 17000 founding documents. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/david-barton-pt--1http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/david-barton-pt--2http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive---david-barton-extended-interview-pt--1http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive---david-barton-extended-interview-pt--2http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive---david-barton-extended-interview-pt--3 No. Sorry, but that is absolutely not what it's about. Having a common heritage would still make calling it Christian values completely accurate. That is not why they put Judeo in there. And there are significant differences between Jews and christians beside kosherness. How about the whole Hell thing? The fact is that this is coming from very intolerant people who are uncomfortable with different people like gays and Muslims. However, ever since ww2 antisemitism is seen as rather evil, so Jews get this weird exception clause to intolerance. Without the holocaust these same people would be terribly mistrusting of Jews as well. The only reason they stick Judeo in there is so they don't sound antisemitic. Homophobic and anti-Muslim is totally A-OK though. Hell has to do with Jesus (surprise). Every single value that is Jewish is also Christian, except for exact things that have to do with Jesus (Jesus is the one who said you could eat pork, surprise). Also Jews have been prosecuted for much longer than 80 years. You need a history lesson. The jews as a group are still blamed for things today (OWS, Ahmahdenajad). Jews have certain beliefs, Christians have certain beliefs which completely include the jewish beliefs, but some are not accepted by jews. The two are similar, but different. The difference might be difficult for someone as historically ignorant and possibly antisemitic as yourself, but I guarantee they exist. I'm sure if it bothers you as much as it appears, you can just fucking google it. And if you do, go look up some history while you're at it. Uhm did you completely misread what I wrote? First of all, I'm Jewish, which is why it pisses me off. It reminds me that these people would probably hate me excepting ww2. It's completely and blatantly disingenuous. Secondly, Christianity has had a terrible history with including centuries of pogroms. Americans were extremely antisemitic before ww2. Because of the holocaust, it's no longer hip to be antisemitic, so they change Christian to Judeo-Christian. Do you really disagree with that?
If I'm not mistaken, it's judeo-christian because of the emphasis of old testament values. It's not so much about loving your neighbor and being kind to one another, but about strict adherence to moral guidelines laid out by things like the 10 Commandments.
|
|
|
I read that more as insurance companies screwing over doctors by undercovering patients and copying Medicare reimbursements.
|
On January 07 2012 02:17 aksfjh wrote:I read that more as insurance companies screwing over doctors by undercovering patients and copying Medicare reimbursements.
Yeah... a lot of the doctors I've read about prefer Medicare over private insurance companies.
|
|
|
It has been said many times but the fact that it's a nuked BarackObama that created the thread makes me lauigh out loud every time 
|
Isn't that Mitt Romney video from the last election in 2008? I remember seeing that a long time ago.
|
On January 06 2012 23:26 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 15:38 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 06 2012 14:47 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 14:38 OsoVega wrote:On January 06 2012 14:27 Haemonculus wrote:On January 06 2012 14:02 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 13:37 Risen wrote:
I'm a little confused by some politicians' views on things. How many states do you really think will actually pass legislation banning things like birth control, pornography, gay marriage, etc. ((All these things increase standards of living in the places they are legal))
If you live in a very conservative state, and these things are banned awesome. That's your right as a state, but have you thought about the economic impact? It wouldn't be a short-term impact, but a long-term impact. People naturally want to live in an area with a higher standard of living, so if you pass legislation barring these things people will move out of your state. Less tax revenue leads to a shitty state. OR what could happen, is the country will become even more polarized.
It's proven in studies that more educated people support these basic SoL increases. What you'll eventually have is an uneducated mass of states and a highly educated mass of states both vying for national power. Bad news imo. None of this stuff will affect me directly, I live in Nevada, I'm not going to have to worry about these things passing, but it still seems pretty shitty when you look at the direction national discourse is taking.
I mean, Santorum as a serious candidate Iowa? Santorum: "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." What the hell? I'm a white male, ergo I'm almost guaranteed to be a conservative, and I can say without a doubt that isn't how traditional conservatives view the world. Traditional Christians? Probably a lot closer to the mark. Traditional conservatives to me means limited government, socially and fiscally.
Anywho, NDAA passing means I won't be voting for the Obama-llama and I can't bring myself to vote for Romney at the moment... so another write-in year, I guess. There are plenty of places with terrible living conditions and terrible education, and those are the same states that will pass such laws. Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. And no, people tend not to think about economic impact when it comes to social issues, even though they usually have massive economic impact. I mean gay marriage certainly would have positive economic impact, but I rarely hear about people using it as an argument. There were school counties in Georgia and Mississippi holding racially segregated proms as late as 2008. Minority students are prohibited from attending "white prom". These states absolutely might pass some crazy legislation. And people like Ron Paul would do nothing to stop it. Just read his 'We the People Act' which is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Wow that's pretty fucked up. Although it doesn't violate the first amendment because the first amendment only says "Congress shall make no law..." Come to think of it, I never considered that state legislatures could basically do whatever under strict interpretation. That's really scary. Yea, now I sort of understand why Jon Stewart asked him if he would have preferred the Articles of Confederation. It is, but you have to think of states as capitalism in government. 50 states compete with each other, and if states are really going to be that draconian and backwater, they're going to quickly find themselves in bad shape, as everyone but the most ignorant people leave for somewhere better. This is such a load of horseshit. For lots of people, (especially people in poverty), you can't just "up and leave" and move elsewhere. You'd be leaving behind your job, your home, your family, etc etc. People spout the "if you don't like it, leave!" mentality far too often without ever considering how unpractical it could be for a poor family to just move across the country with no prospects elsewhere in the event of some crazy laws.
Like a million poor swedes traveled across the atlantic ocean with nothing of certainty waiting on the other side... I guess they all died?
|
Canada11398 Posts
On January 07 2012 00:03 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 23:26 Haemonculus wrote:On January 06 2012 15:38 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 06 2012 14:47 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 14:38 OsoVega wrote:On January 06 2012 14:27 Haemonculus wrote:On January 06 2012 14:02 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 13:37 Risen wrote:
I'm a little confused by some politicians' views on things. How many states do you really think will actually pass legislation banning things like birth control, pornography, gay marriage, etc. ((All these things increase standards of living in the places they are legal))
If you live in a very conservative state, and these things are banned awesome. That's your right as a state, but have you thought about the economic impact? It wouldn't be a short-term impact, but a long-term impact. People naturally want to live in an area with a higher standard of living, so if you pass legislation barring these things people will move out of your state. Less tax revenue leads to a shitty state. OR what could happen, is the country will become even more polarized.
It's proven in studies that more educated people support these basic SoL increases. What you'll eventually have is an uneducated mass of states and a highly educated mass of states both vying for national power. Bad news imo. None of this stuff will affect me directly, I live in Nevada, I'm not going to have to worry about these things passing, but it still seems pretty shitty when you look at the direction national discourse is taking.
I mean, Santorum as a serious candidate Iowa? Santorum: "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." What the hell? I'm a white male, ergo I'm almost guaranteed to be a conservative, and I can say without a doubt that isn't how traditional conservatives view the world. Traditional Christians? Probably a lot closer to the mark. Traditional conservatives to me means limited government, socially and fiscally.
Anywho, NDAA passing means I won't be voting for the Obama-llama and I can't bring myself to vote for Romney at the moment... so another write-in year, I guess. There are plenty of places with terrible living conditions and terrible education, and those are the same states that will pass such laws. Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. And no, people tend not to think about economic impact when it comes to social issues, even though they usually have massive economic impact. I mean gay marriage certainly would have positive economic impact, but I rarely hear about people using it as an argument. There were school counties in Georgia and Mississippi holding racially segregated proms as late as 2008. Minority students are prohibited from attending "white prom". These states absolutely might pass some crazy legislation. And people like Ron Paul would do nothing to stop it. Just read his 'We the People Act' which is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Wow that's pretty fucked up. Although it doesn't violate the first amendment because the first amendment only says "Congress shall make no law..." Come to think of it, I never considered that state legislatures could basically do whatever under strict interpretation. That's really scary. Yea, now I sort of understand why Jon Stewart asked him if he would have preferred the Articles of Confederation. It is, but you have to think of states as capitalism in government. 50 states compete with each other, and if states are really going to be that draconian and backwater, they're going to quickly find themselves in bad shape, as everyone but the most ignorant people leave for somewhere better. This is such a load of horseshit. For lots of people, (especially people in poverty), you can't just "up and leave" and move elsewhere. You'd be leaving behind your job, your home, your family, etc etc. People spout the "if you don't like it, leave!" mentality far too often without ever considering how unpractical it could be for a poor family to just move across the country with no prospects elsewhere in the event of some crazy laws. They definitely can, if they'll be moving to a state that has cheaper costs of living, and better education system, and better standard of living, the vast majority of people will be able to leave, and when those people leave the State's economy and community is going to go downhill, so the people who implemented the harsh controls and regulations will get voted out anyways.
No I don't see it as terribly viable. Not all states are equal and if California goes to hell, where exactly are all those people going to go? Not every state is going to have the job opportunities that match your skill set. And at the very least, ignores family roots. People will hang on to jobs for a long time hoping it will get better because of the security of having a job.
In far more dire situations than what would happen in the US, the established Mennonite farmers in Russia wouldn't flee despite the warning signs of a brutal communist regime hostile to Germanic-descent 'foreigners.' It was only the young that had no place to start farms that fled in time before the border closed and the Gulags filled up. US isn't going to end up like that, but why abuse people's willingness to tough it out and keep the family together in their home state? Furthermore, it's not simply the case that when a ton of people leave, the party will get voted out. Not when the ones that leave are just the disenfranchised minority. You can always scapegoat them and those that remain.
I don't see why letting the extremists co-opt a state is beneficial just so you can have competition when the extremes can be reigned in with some guidelines. Canadian Health Act for public healthcare- provinces provide healthcare and are allowed to individualize their healthcare as long as they conform to the principles of the act: Public administration (insurance, not delivery), comprehensiveness, universality, portability and a level of accountability Failing this, the provinces risk penalties to the federal transfer payments. Creativity within bounds.
What is this great utopia that you are trying to find that you would abandon any form of national policy? And do you need to risk states becoming despots to gain it?
It seems an abandonment of any sort of national American identity and such a strong argument for individual state sovereignty of the like that our separatist Bloc Quebecois would support.
|
This is such a load of horseshit. For lots of people, (especially people in poverty), you can't just "up and leave" and move elsewhere. You'd be leaving behind your job, your home, your family, etc etc. People spout the "if you don't like it, leave!" mentality far too often without ever considering how unpractical it could be for a poor family to just move across the country with no prospects elsewhere in the event of some crazy laws.
Yes, this is such a load of horseshit.
According to this analysis:
http://www.nd.edu/~awaggone/papers/migration-msw.pdf
Although internal migration has slowed in recent decades, about 3% of the population a year moves to another "Census region" (multiple states away from their home state) or another state in their original "Census region," and another 3% move to a different County in their own state.
That's 6% of ~310 million people moving at least somewhat of a significant distance every year, presumably for economic and social reasons. That's 18 and a half million people a year.
You obviously don't know too many people actually in poverty, I do, and in fact they move quite frequently, I've had friends move to other states, across the state, halfway across the state, to the next county over, to the town two towns away, whatever, looking for jobs and places they can afford to live. They move all the time. Some of them 2, 3, 4 times a year. Poor people are some of the most mobile; they have to be.
Some people still think that being "poor" means you live in a Dickensian horror, for a minority of poor people that's true, but for most living in poverty in a Western country, it's not. They have access to the opportunity and means to go somewhere else and try their luck.
What is this great utopia that you are trying to find that you would abandon any form of national policy? And do you need to risk states becoming despots to gain it?
It seems an abandonment of any sort of national American identity and such a strong argument for individual state sovereignty of the like that our separatist Bloc Quebecois would support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Federalism is a part of our national American identity, not a force that would break that identity apart.
|
Canada11398 Posts
Well except a certain civil war...
|
On January 07 2012 00:07 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 00:03 Kiarip wrote:On January 06 2012 23:26 Haemonculus wrote:On January 06 2012 15:38 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 06 2012 14:47 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 14:38 OsoVega wrote:On January 06 2012 14:27 Haemonculus wrote:On January 06 2012 14:02 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 13:37 Risen wrote:
I'm a little confused by some politicians' views on things. How many states do you really think will actually pass legislation banning things like birth control, pornography, gay marriage, etc. ((All these things increase standards of living in the places they are legal))
If you live in a very conservative state, and these things are banned awesome. That's your right as a state, but have you thought about the economic impact? It wouldn't be a short-term impact, but a long-term impact. People naturally want to live in an area with a higher standard of living, so if you pass legislation barring these things people will move out of your state. Less tax revenue leads to a shitty state. OR what could happen, is the country will become even more polarized.
It's proven in studies that more educated people support these basic SoL increases. What you'll eventually have is an uneducated mass of states and a highly educated mass of states both vying for national power. Bad news imo. None of this stuff will affect me directly, I live in Nevada, I'm not going to have to worry about these things passing, but it still seems pretty shitty when you look at the direction national discourse is taking.
I mean, Santorum as a serious candidate Iowa? Santorum: "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." What the hell? I'm a white male, ergo I'm almost guaranteed to be a conservative, and I can say without a doubt that isn't how traditional conservatives view the world. Traditional Christians? Probably a lot closer to the mark. Traditional conservatives to me means limited government, socially and fiscally.
Anywho, NDAA passing means I won't be voting for the Obama-llama and I can't bring myself to vote for Romney at the moment... so another write-in year, I guess. There are plenty of places with terrible living conditions and terrible education, and those are the same states that will pass such laws. Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. And no, people tend not to think about economic impact when it comes to social issues, even though they usually have massive economic impact. I mean gay marriage certainly would have positive economic impact, but I rarely hear about people using it as an argument. There were school counties in Georgia and Mississippi holding racially segregated proms as late as 2008. Minority students are prohibited from attending "white prom". These states absolutely might pass some crazy legislation. And people like Ron Paul would do nothing to stop it. Just read his 'We the People Act' which is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Wow that's pretty fucked up. Although it doesn't violate the first amendment because the first amendment only says "Congress shall make no law..." Come to think of it, I never considered that state legislatures could basically do whatever under strict interpretation. That's really scary. Yea, now I sort of understand why Jon Stewart asked him if he would have preferred the Articles of Confederation. It is, but you have to think of states as capitalism in government. 50 states compete with each other, and if states are really going to be that draconian and backwater, they're going to quickly find themselves in bad shape, as everyone but the most ignorant people leave for somewhere better. This is such a load of horseshit. For lots of people, (especially people in poverty), you can't just "up and leave" and move elsewhere. You'd be leaving behind your job, your home, your family, etc etc. People spout the "if you don't like it, leave!" mentality far too often without ever considering how unpractical it could be for a poor family to just move across the country with no prospects elsewhere in the event of some crazy laws. They definitely can, if they'll be moving to a state that has cheaper costs of living, and better education system, and better standard of living, the vast majority of people will be able to leave, and when those people leave the State's economy and community is going to go downhill, so the people who implemented the harsh controls and regulations will get voted out anyways. Well, no. There are still plenty of black people in those states despite the more racist overtones. Besides what would happen is the moderates would leave, making the state become more extreme, not less.
Yeah, but to be truthful in the states that tend to have racist overtones, the cost of living is actually less than it is in places that are more diverse, so it's not straight up better to live here for example (in New York) if you're black than it is somewhere like Tennessee or something like that.
|
On January 07 2012 08:57 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 00:03 Kiarip wrote:On January 06 2012 23:26 Haemonculus wrote:On January 06 2012 15:38 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 06 2012 14:47 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 14:38 OsoVega wrote:On January 06 2012 14:27 Haemonculus wrote:On January 06 2012 14:02 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 13:37 Risen wrote:
I'm a little confused by some politicians' views on things. How many states do you really think will actually pass legislation banning things like birth control, pornography, gay marriage, etc. ((All these things increase standards of living in the places they are legal))
If you live in a very conservative state, and these things are banned awesome. That's your right as a state, but have you thought about the economic impact? It wouldn't be a short-term impact, but a long-term impact. People naturally want to live in an area with a higher standard of living, so if you pass legislation barring these things people will move out of your state. Less tax revenue leads to a shitty state. OR what could happen, is the country will become even more polarized.
It's proven in studies that more educated people support these basic SoL increases. What you'll eventually have is an uneducated mass of states and a highly educated mass of states both vying for national power. Bad news imo. None of this stuff will affect me directly, I live in Nevada, I'm not going to have to worry about these things passing, but it still seems pretty shitty when you look at the direction national discourse is taking.
I mean, Santorum as a serious candidate Iowa? Santorum: "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." What the hell? I'm a white male, ergo I'm almost guaranteed to be a conservative, and I can say without a doubt that isn't how traditional conservatives view the world. Traditional Christians? Probably a lot closer to the mark. Traditional conservatives to me means limited government, socially and fiscally.
Anywho, NDAA passing means I won't be voting for the Obama-llama and I can't bring myself to vote for Romney at the moment... so another write-in year, I guess. There are plenty of places with terrible living conditions and terrible education, and those are the same states that will pass such laws. Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. And no, people tend not to think about economic impact when it comes to social issues, even though they usually have massive economic impact. I mean gay marriage certainly would have positive economic impact, but I rarely hear about people using it as an argument. There were school counties in Georgia and Mississippi holding racially segregated proms as late as 2008. Minority students are prohibited from attending "white prom". These states absolutely might pass some crazy legislation. And people like Ron Paul would do nothing to stop it. Just read his 'We the People Act' which is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Wow that's pretty fucked up. Although it doesn't violate the first amendment because the first amendment only says "Congress shall make no law..." Come to think of it, I never considered that state legislatures could basically do whatever under strict interpretation. That's really scary. Yea, now I sort of understand why Jon Stewart asked him if he would have preferred the Articles of Confederation. It is, but you have to think of states as capitalism in government. 50 states compete with each other, and if states are really going to be that draconian and backwater, they're going to quickly find themselves in bad shape, as everyone but the most ignorant people leave for somewhere better. This is such a load of horseshit. For lots of people, (especially people in poverty), you can't just "up and leave" and move elsewhere. You'd be leaving behind your job, your home, your family, etc etc. People spout the "if you don't like it, leave!" mentality far too often without ever considering how unpractical it could be for a poor family to just move across the country with no prospects elsewhere in the event of some crazy laws. They definitely can, if they'll be moving to a state that has cheaper costs of living, and better education system, and better standard of living, the vast majority of people will be able to leave, and when those people leave the State's economy and community is going to go downhill, so the people who implemented the harsh controls and regulations will get voted out anyways. No I don't see it as terribly viable. Not all states are equal and if California goes to hell, where exactly are all those people going to go? Not every state is going to have the job opportunities that match your skill set. And at the very least, ignores family roots. People will hang on to jobs for a long time hoping it will get better because of the security of having a job. In far more dire situations than what would happen in the US, the established Mennonite farmers in Russia wouldn't flee despite the warning signs of a brutal communist regime hostile to Germanic-descent 'foreigners.' It was only the young that had no place to start farms that fled in time before the border closed and the Gulags filled up. US isn't going to end up like that, but why abuse people's willingness to tough it out and keep the family together in their home state? Furthermore, it's not simply the case that when a ton of people leave, the party will get voted out. Not when the ones that leave are just the disenfranchised minority. You can always scapegoat them and those that remain. I don't see why letting the extremists co-opt a state is beneficial just so you can have competition when the extremes can be reigned in with some guidelines. Canadian Health Act for public healthcare- provinces provide healthcare and are allowed to individualize their healthcare as long as they conform to the principles of the act: Public administration (insurance, not delivery), comprehensiveness, universality, portability and a level of accountability Failing this, the provinces risk penalties to the federal transfer payments. Creativity within bounds. What is this great utopia that you are trying to find that you would abandon any form of national policy? And do you need to risk states becoming despots to gain it? It seems an abandonment of any sort of national American identity and such a strong argument for individual state sovereignty of the like that our separatist Bloc Quebecois would support.
Well I agree that there are guidelines on what states can do, but they can't be super strict. The states shouldn't over-step their boundaries or violate individual's rights, but say if a state teaches creationism with its state school system, the majority of people who don't like that CAN leave, and if it is in fact a negative for a society to teach creationism in schools, then the negative effect will show, but if it's not then people are simply making a personal choice to live in a different place, and there's nothing wrong with that.
A lot of state enforcement won't even be possible if the federal government loosens the reigns, because a lot of the state regulations that have to do with costs and standards of living are those that prevent employment, and currently the federal government is dominant in the area of destroying employment, if the Federal government was forced to take a step-back, then the state-enforced policies that negatively effect the socio-economic status of the people will stick out like sore thumbs in comparison to the more liberal (in this sense) states.
On January 06 2012 23:26 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 15:38 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 06 2012 14:47 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 14:38 OsoVega wrote:On January 06 2012 14:27 Haemonculus wrote:On January 06 2012 14:02 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 13:37 Risen wrote:
I'm a little confused by some politicians' views on things. How many states do you really think will actually pass legislation banning things like birth control, pornography, gay marriage, etc. ((All these things increase standards of living in the places they are legal))
If you live in a very conservative state, and these things are banned awesome. That's your right as a state, but have you thought about the economic impact? It wouldn't be a short-term impact, but a long-term impact. People naturally want to live in an area with a higher standard of living, so if you pass legislation barring these things people will move out of your state. Less tax revenue leads to a shitty state. OR what could happen, is the country will become even more polarized.
It's proven in studies that more educated people support these basic SoL increases. What you'll eventually have is an uneducated mass of states and a highly educated mass of states both vying for national power. Bad news imo. None of this stuff will affect me directly, I live in Nevada, I'm not going to have to worry about these things passing, but it still seems pretty shitty when you look at the direction national discourse is taking.
I mean, Santorum as a serious candidate Iowa? Santorum: "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." What the hell? I'm a white male, ergo I'm almost guaranteed to be a conservative, and I can say without a doubt that isn't how traditional conservatives view the world. Traditional Christians? Probably a lot closer to the mark. Traditional conservatives to me means limited government, socially and fiscally.
Anywho, NDAA passing means I won't be voting for the Obama-llama and I can't bring myself to vote for Romney at the moment... so another write-in year, I guess. There are plenty of places with terrible living conditions and terrible education, and those are the same states that will pass such laws. Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. And no, people tend not to think about economic impact when it comes to social issues, even though they usually have massive economic impact. I mean gay marriage certainly would have positive economic impact, but I rarely hear about people using it as an argument. There were school counties in Georgia and Mississippi holding racially segregated proms as late as 2008. Minority students are prohibited from attending "white prom". These states absolutely might pass some crazy legislation. And people like Ron Paul would do nothing to stop it. Just read his 'We the People Act' which is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Wow that's pretty fucked up. Although it doesn't violate the first amendment because the first amendment only says "Congress shall make no law..." Come to think of it, I never considered that state legislatures could basically do whatever under strict interpretation. That's really scary. Yea, now I sort of understand why Jon Stewart asked him if he would have preferred the Articles of Confederation. It is, but you have to think of states as capitalism in government. 50 states compete with each other, and if states are really going to be that draconian and backwater, they're going to quickly find themselves in bad shape, as everyone but the most ignorant people leave for somewhere better. This is such a load of horseshit. For lots of people, (especially people in poverty), you can't just "up and leave" and move elsewhere. You'd be leaving behind your job, your home, your family, etc etc. People spout the "if you don't like it, leave!" mentality far too often without ever considering how unpractical it could be for a poor family to just move across the country with no prospects elsewhere in the event of some crazy laws.
Actually it's the other way around. The REALLY poor people are the people that are in such dire straits, that they WILL leave their home and family if there's a place for them to go where the cost of living is lower and they can still find a job. It's in fact staying in the same place that's a LUXURY. People that absolutely need money will move to wherever they are offered more for their work as long as the cost of living doesn't negate the increased pay. The relative cost to move is not that great, especially since they usually DON'T own a home, and don't have all that much stuff.
Of course people that do have homes will need a greater incentive to change residence, but at least they own a home, which they can sell if times are particularly rough.
|
On January 06 2012 23:51 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 23:37 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On January 06 2012 23:11 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 20:37 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On January 06 2012 14:02 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 13:37 Risen wrote:
I'm a little confused by some politicians' views on things. How many states do you really think will actually pass legislation banning things like birth control, pornography, gay marriage, etc. ((All these things increase standards of living in the places they are legal))
If you live in a very conservative state, and these things are banned awesome. That's your right as a state, but have you thought about the economic impact? It wouldn't be a short-term impact, but a long-term impact. People naturally want to live in an area with a higher standard of living, so if you pass legislation barring these things people will move out of your state. Less tax revenue leads to a shitty state. OR what could happen, is the country will become even more polarized.
It's proven in studies that more educated people support these basic SoL increases. What you'll eventually have is an uneducated mass of states and a highly educated mass of states both vying for national power. Bad news imo. None of this stuff will affect me directly, I live in Nevada, I'm not going to have to worry about these things passing, but it still seems pretty shitty when you look at the direction national discourse is taking.
I mean, Santorum as a serious candidate Iowa? Santorum: "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." What the hell? I'm a white male, ergo I'm almost guaranteed to be a conservative, and I can say without a doubt that isn't how traditional conservatives view the world. Traditional Christians? Probably a lot closer to the mark. Traditional conservatives to me means limited government, socially and fiscally.
Anywho, NDAA passing means I won't be voting for the Obama-llama and I can't bring myself to vote for Romney at the moment... so another write-in year, I guess. There are plenty of places with terrible living conditions and terrible education, and those are the same states that will pass such laws. Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. And no, people tend not to think about economic impact when it comes to social issues, even though they usually have massive economic impact. I mean gay marriage certainly would have positive economic impact, but I rarely hear about people using it as an argument.
Just to clarify, conservatism isn't about limited government, but rather a continuation and protection of traditional programs and culture. At this point, conservatism in the U.S. would be more along the lines of prohibiting gay marriage, upholding SS and Medicare, rolling back the healthcare legislation, celebrating judeo-christian values, and keeping a strong military.
May I just say that I'm really sick of this "Judeo-Christian" bullshit. It's like you want to say how Christian America should be but you don't want to sound anti-semetic because Jews get this weird exception clause. Judeo-Christian values is bull. None of the founders were Jewish, nearly all of them were secularists, and many of them were Deists. Where the hell did we get Judeo- from? It's a secular country and always has been. Why not Monotheist values? Oh right, we want to differentiate from those muslims, don't we? Because the Old testament is the Torah. The entire bible is about Jews. Gods chosen people are the Jews. Jesus is the king of the Jews (according to christians). Everywhere you read in the bible it's always about the Jews. The only difference between Jews and Christians is christians say Jesus is the prophesied savor and king of the Jews (and other minor details that have to do with Jesus, like saying you can eat pork because methods of curing the meat had been discovered). That difference is enough to separate the two religions (also the fact that many jews and jewish by decent, while most christians are nonjewish). They created a secular government, for a religious people. Here is a John Steward interview which might interest you. And you can always go to his website where he has his 17000 founding documents. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/david-barton-pt--1http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/david-barton-pt--2http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive---david-barton-extended-interview-pt--1http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive---david-barton-extended-interview-pt--2http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive---david-barton-extended-interview-pt--3 No. Sorry, but that is absolutely not what it's about. Having a common heritage would still make calling it Christian values completely accurate. That is not why they put Judeo in there. And there are significant differences between Jews and christians beside kosherness. How about the whole Hell thing? The fact is that this is coming from very intolerant people who are uncomfortable with different people like gays and Muslims. However, ever since ww2 antisemitism is seen as rather evil, so Jews get this weird exception clause to intolerance. Without the holocaust these same people would be terribly mistrusting of Jews as well. The only reason they stick Judeo in there is so they don't sound antisemitic. Homophobic and anti-Muslim is totally A-OK though. Hell has to do with Jesus (surprise). Every single value that is Jewish is also Christian, except for exact things that have to do with Jesus (Jesus is the one who said you could eat pork, surprise). Also Jews have been prosecuted for much longer than 80 years. You need a history lesson. The jews as a group are still blamed for things today (OWS, Ahmahdenajad). Jews have certain beliefs, Christians have certain beliefs which completely include the jewish beliefs, but some are not accepted by jews. The two are similar, but different. The difference might be difficult for someone as historically ignorant and possibly antisemitic as yourself, but I guarantee they exist. I'm sure if it bothers you as much as it appears, you can just fucking google it. And if you do, go look up some history while you're at it. Uhm did you completely misread what I wrote? First of all, I'm Jewish, which is why it pisses me off. It reminds me that these people would probably hate me excepting ww2. It's completely and blatantly disingenuous. Secondly, Christianity has had a terrible history with including centuries of pogroms. Americans were extremely antisemitic before ww2. Because of the holocaust, it's no longer hip to be antisemitic, so they change Christian to Judeo-Christian. Do you really disagree with that?
Just to clarify, modern religious scholars speak of Judeo-Christianity in the same sense that it is impossible to speak of Christianity without also speaking of Judaism. Scholars didn't start speaking of the term Judeo-Christianity because it's a faux-pas to be anti-semetic. The term has been around much earlier than WW2 from around like the 19th century when liberal Protestants began to deploy higher criticism. It's not as if Christian scholars haven't had such thoughts prior to the Protestant Reformation that arguably was the beginning of Christian modernity either.
So no, Americans don't speak of "Judeo-Christianity" simply because of social conventions rising from the aftermath of WW2.
|
On January 07 2012 09:09 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 00:07 DoubleReed wrote:On January 07 2012 00:03 Kiarip wrote:On January 06 2012 23:26 Haemonculus wrote:On January 06 2012 15:38 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 06 2012 14:47 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 14:38 OsoVega wrote:On January 06 2012 14:27 Haemonculus wrote:On January 06 2012 14:02 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 13:37 Risen wrote:
I'm a little confused by some politicians' views on things. How many states do you really think will actually pass legislation banning things like birth control, pornography, gay marriage, etc. ((All these things increase standards of living in the places they are legal))
If you live in a very conservative state, and these things are banned awesome. That's your right as a state, but have you thought about the economic impact? It wouldn't be a short-term impact, but a long-term impact. People naturally want to live in an area with a higher standard of living, so if you pass legislation barring these things people will move out of your state. Less tax revenue leads to a shitty state. OR what could happen, is the country will become even more polarized.
It's proven in studies that more educated people support these basic SoL increases. What you'll eventually have is an uneducated mass of states and a highly educated mass of states both vying for national power. Bad news imo. None of this stuff will affect me directly, I live in Nevada, I'm not going to have to worry about these things passing, but it still seems pretty shitty when you look at the direction national discourse is taking.
I mean, Santorum as a serious candidate Iowa? Santorum: "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." What the hell? I'm a white male, ergo I'm almost guaranteed to be a conservative, and I can say without a doubt that isn't how traditional conservatives view the world. Traditional Christians? Probably a lot closer to the mark. Traditional conservatives to me means limited government, socially and fiscally.
Anywho, NDAA passing means I won't be voting for the Obama-llama and I can't bring myself to vote for Romney at the moment... so another write-in year, I guess. There are plenty of places with terrible living conditions and terrible education, and those are the same states that will pass such laws. Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. And no, people tend not to think about economic impact when it comes to social issues, even though they usually have massive economic impact. I mean gay marriage certainly would have positive economic impact, but I rarely hear about people using it as an argument. There were school counties in Georgia and Mississippi holding racially segregated proms as late as 2008. Minority students are prohibited from attending "white prom". These states absolutely might pass some crazy legislation. And people like Ron Paul would do nothing to stop it. Just read his 'We the People Act' which is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Wow that's pretty fucked up. Although it doesn't violate the first amendment because the first amendment only says "Congress shall make no law..." Come to think of it, I never considered that state legislatures could basically do whatever under strict interpretation. That's really scary. Yea, now I sort of understand why Jon Stewart asked him if he would have preferred the Articles of Confederation. It is, but you have to think of states as capitalism in government. 50 states compete with each other, and if states are really going to be that draconian and backwater, they're going to quickly find themselves in bad shape, as everyone but the most ignorant people leave for somewhere better. This is such a load of horseshit. For lots of people, (especially people in poverty), you can't just "up and leave" and move elsewhere. You'd be leaving behind your job, your home, your family, etc etc. People spout the "if you don't like it, leave!" mentality far too often without ever considering how unpractical it could be for a poor family to just move across the country with no prospects elsewhere in the event of some crazy laws. They definitely can, if they'll be moving to a state that has cheaper costs of living, and better education system, and better standard of living, the vast majority of people will be able to leave, and when those people leave the State's economy and community is going to go downhill, so the people who implemented the harsh controls and regulations will get voted out anyways. Well, no. There are still plenty of black people in those states despite the more racist overtones. Besides what would happen is the moderates would leave, making the state become more extreme, not less. Yeah, but to be truthful in the states that tend to have racist overtones, the cost of living is actually less than it is in places that are more diverse, so it's not straight up better to live here for example (in New York) if you're black than it is somewhere like Tennessee or something like that.
But people, especially poor people, don't make their decisions like that. Someone can correct me on this, but I was under the impression that the only way they deal with the oppression is by tight-knit communities and family. That provides a strong disincentive to leave.
And you didn't really address the issue with the state becoming more extreme due to moderates leaving. It really sounds like this kind of policy would dangerously divide a nation.
On January 07 2012 09:21 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 23:51 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 23:37 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On January 06 2012 23:11 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 20:37 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On January 06 2012 14:02 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 13:37 Risen wrote:
I'm a little confused by some politicians' views on things. How many states do you really think will actually pass legislation banning things like birth control, pornography, gay marriage, etc. ((All these things increase standards of living in the places they are legal))
If you live in a very conservative state, and these things are banned awesome. That's your right as a state, but have you thought about the economic impact? It wouldn't be a short-term impact, but a long-term impact. People naturally want to live in an area with a higher standard of living, so if you pass legislation barring these things people will move out of your state. Less tax revenue leads to a shitty state. OR what could happen, is the country will become even more polarized.
It's proven in studies that more educated people support these basic SoL increases. What you'll eventually have is an uneducated mass of states and a highly educated mass of states both vying for national power. Bad news imo. None of this stuff will affect me directly, I live in Nevada, I'm not going to have to worry about these things passing, but it still seems pretty shitty when you look at the direction national discourse is taking.
I mean, Santorum as a serious candidate Iowa? Santorum: "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." What the hell? I'm a white male, ergo I'm almost guaranteed to be a conservative, and I can say without a doubt that isn't how traditional conservatives view the world. Traditional Christians? Probably a lot closer to the mark. Traditional conservatives to me means limited government, socially and fiscally.
Anywho, NDAA passing means I won't be voting for the Obama-llama and I can't bring myself to vote for Romney at the moment... so another write-in year, I guess. There are plenty of places with terrible living conditions and terrible education, and those are the same states that will pass such laws. Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. And no, people tend not to think about economic impact when it comes to social issues, even though they usually have massive economic impact. I mean gay marriage certainly would have positive economic impact, but I rarely hear about people using it as an argument.
Just to clarify, conservatism isn't about limited government, but rather a continuation and protection of traditional programs and culture. At this point, conservatism in the U.S. would be more along the lines of prohibiting gay marriage, upholding SS and Medicare, rolling back the healthcare legislation, celebrating judeo-christian values, and keeping a strong military.
May I just say that I'm really sick of this "Judeo-Christian" bullshit. It's like you want to say how Christian America should be but you don't want to sound anti-semetic because Jews get this weird exception clause. Judeo-Christian values is bull. None of the founders were Jewish, nearly all of them were secularists, and many of them were Deists. Where the hell did we get Judeo- from? It's a secular country and always has been. Why not Monotheist values? Oh right, we want to differentiate from those muslims, don't we? Because the Old testament is the Torah. The entire bible is about Jews. Gods chosen people are the Jews. Jesus is the king of the Jews (according to christians). Everywhere you read in the bible it's always about the Jews. The only difference between Jews and Christians is christians say Jesus is the prophesied savor and king of the Jews (and other minor details that have to do with Jesus, like saying you can eat pork because methods of curing the meat had been discovered). That difference is enough to separate the two religions (also the fact that many jews and jewish by decent, while most christians are nonjewish). They created a secular government, for a religious people. Here is a John Steward interview which might interest you. And you can always go to his website where he has his 17000 founding documents. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/david-barton-pt--1http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/david-barton-pt--2http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive---david-barton-extended-interview-pt--1http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive---david-barton-extended-interview-pt--2http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive---david-barton-extended-interview-pt--3 No. Sorry, but that is absolutely not what it's about. Having a common heritage would still make calling it Christian values completely accurate. That is not why they put Judeo in there. And there are significant differences between Jews and christians beside kosherness. How about the whole Hell thing? The fact is that this is coming from very intolerant people who are uncomfortable with different people like gays and Muslims. However, ever since ww2 antisemitism is seen as rather evil, so Jews get this weird exception clause to intolerance. Without the holocaust these same people would be terribly mistrusting of Jews as well. The only reason they stick Judeo in there is so they don't sound antisemitic. Homophobic and anti-Muslim is totally A-OK though. Hell has to do with Jesus (surprise). Every single value that is Jewish is also Christian, except for exact things that have to do with Jesus (Jesus is the one who said you could eat pork, surprise). Also Jews have been prosecuted for much longer than 80 years. You need a history lesson. The jews as a group are still blamed for things today (OWS, Ahmahdenajad). Jews have certain beliefs, Christians have certain beliefs which completely include the jewish beliefs, but some are not accepted by jews. The two are similar, but different. The difference might be difficult for someone as historically ignorant and possibly antisemitic as yourself, but I guarantee they exist. I'm sure if it bothers you as much as it appears, you can just fucking google it. And if you do, go look up some history while you're at it. Uhm did you completely misread what I wrote? First of all, I'm Jewish, which is why it pisses me off. It reminds me that these people would probably hate me excepting ww2. It's completely and blatantly disingenuous. Secondly, Christianity has had a terrible history with including centuries of pogroms. Americans were extremely antisemitic before ww2. Because of the holocaust, it's no longer hip to be antisemitic, so they change Christian to Judeo-Christian. Do you really disagree with that? Just to clarify, modern religious scholars speak of Judeo-Christianity in the same sense that it is impossible to speak of Christianity without also speaking of Judaism. Scholars didn't start speaking of the term Judeo-Christianity because it's a faux-pas to be anti-semetic. The term has been around much earlier than WW2 from around like the 19th century when liberal Protestants began to deploy higher criticism. It's not as if Christian scholars haven't had such thoughts prior to the Protestant Reformation that arguably was the beginning of Christian modernity either. So no, Americans don't speak of "Judeo-Christianity" simply because of social conventions rising from the aftermath of WW2.
I'll take your word for it. Though people often do use it to refer to the founding fathers, for some aggravating reason.
|
On January 07 2012 08:04 koreasilver wrote:
Isn't that Mitt Romney video from the last election in 2008? I remember seeing that a long time ago.
You are correct , my bad , I just looked into it^^
|
On January 06 2012 15:47 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 15:38 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 06 2012 14:47 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 14:38 OsoVega wrote:On January 06 2012 14:27 Haemonculus wrote:On January 06 2012 14:02 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 13:37 Risen wrote:
I'm a little confused by some politicians' views on things. How many states do you really think will actually pass legislation banning things like birth control, pornography, gay marriage, etc. ((All these things increase standards of living in the places they are legal))
If you live in a very conservative state, and these things are banned awesome. That's your right as a state, but have you thought about the economic impact? It wouldn't be a short-term impact, but a long-term impact. People naturally want to live in an area with a higher standard of living, so if you pass legislation barring these things people will move out of your state. Less tax revenue leads to a shitty state. OR what could happen, is the country will become even more polarized.
It's proven in studies that more educated people support these basic SoL increases. What you'll eventually have is an uneducated mass of states and a highly educated mass of states both vying for national power. Bad news imo. None of this stuff will affect me directly, I live in Nevada, I'm not going to have to worry about these things passing, but it still seems pretty shitty when you look at the direction national discourse is taking.
I mean, Santorum as a serious candidate Iowa? Santorum: "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." What the hell? I'm a white male, ergo I'm almost guaranteed to be a conservative, and I can say without a doubt that isn't how traditional conservatives view the world. Traditional Christians? Probably a lot closer to the mark. Traditional conservatives to me means limited government, socially and fiscally.
Anywho, NDAA passing means I won't be voting for the Obama-llama and I can't bring myself to vote for Romney at the moment... so another write-in year, I guess. There are plenty of places with terrible living conditions and terrible education, and those are the same states that will pass such laws. Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. And no, people tend not to think about economic impact when it comes to social issues, even though they usually have massive economic impact. I mean gay marriage certainly would have positive economic impact, but I rarely hear about people using it as an argument. There were school counties in Georgia and Mississippi holding racially segregated proms as late as 2008. Minority students are prohibited from attending "white prom". These states absolutely might pass some crazy legislation. And people like Ron Paul would do nothing to stop it. Just read his 'We the People Act' which is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Wow that's pretty fucked up. Although it doesn't violate the first amendment because the first amendment only says "Congress shall make no law..." Come to think of it, I never considered that state legislatures could basically do whatever under strict interpretation. That's really scary. Yea, now I sort of understand why Jon Stewart asked him if he would have preferred the Articles of Confederation. It is, but you have to think of states as capitalism in government. 50 states compete with each other, and if states are really going to be that draconian and backwater, they're going to quickly find themselves in bad shape, as everyone but the most ignorant people leave for somewhere better. States don't have free entry and exit.
Weird... I guess it's a fluke that the hundreds of times I've traversed state lines I've never paid a cent. But you must be right so I completely concede my well thought out point for your single unverified response.
|
On January 07 2012 09:36 EternaLLegacy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 15:47 Whitewing wrote:On January 06 2012 15:38 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 06 2012 14:47 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 14:38 OsoVega wrote:On January 06 2012 14:27 Haemonculus wrote:On January 06 2012 14:02 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 13:37 Risen wrote:
I'm a little confused by some politicians' views on things. How many states do you really think will actually pass legislation banning things like birth control, pornography, gay marriage, etc. ((All these things increase standards of living in the places they are legal))
If you live in a very conservative state, and these things are banned awesome. That's your right as a state, but have you thought about the economic impact? It wouldn't be a short-term impact, but a long-term impact. People naturally want to live in an area with a higher standard of living, so if you pass legislation barring these things people will move out of your state. Less tax revenue leads to a shitty state. OR what could happen, is the country will become even more polarized.
It's proven in studies that more educated people support these basic SoL increases. What you'll eventually have is an uneducated mass of states and a highly educated mass of states both vying for national power. Bad news imo. None of this stuff will affect me directly, I live in Nevada, I'm not going to have to worry about these things passing, but it still seems pretty shitty when you look at the direction national discourse is taking.
I mean, Santorum as a serious candidate Iowa? Santorum: "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." What the hell? I'm a white male, ergo I'm almost guaranteed to be a conservative, and I can say without a doubt that isn't how traditional conservatives view the world. Traditional Christians? Probably a lot closer to the mark. Traditional conservatives to me means limited government, socially and fiscally.
Anywho, NDAA passing means I won't be voting for the Obama-llama and I can't bring myself to vote for Romney at the moment... so another write-in year, I guess. There are plenty of places with terrible living conditions and terrible education, and those are the same states that will pass such laws. Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. And no, people tend not to think about economic impact when it comes to social issues, even though they usually have massive economic impact. I mean gay marriage certainly would have positive economic impact, but I rarely hear about people using it as an argument. There were school counties in Georgia and Mississippi holding racially segregated proms as late as 2008. Minority students are prohibited from attending "white prom". These states absolutely might pass some crazy legislation. And people like Ron Paul would do nothing to stop it. Just read his 'We the People Act' which is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Wow that's pretty fucked up. Although it doesn't violate the first amendment because the first amendment only says "Congress shall make no law..." Come to think of it, I never considered that state legislatures could basically do whatever under strict interpretation. That's really scary. Yea, now I sort of understand why Jon Stewart asked him if he would have preferred the Articles of Confederation. It is, but you have to think of states as capitalism in government. 50 states compete with each other, and if states are really going to be that draconian and backwater, they're going to quickly find themselves in bad shape, as everyone but the most ignorant people leave for somewhere better. States don't have free entry and exit. Weird... I guess it's a fluke that the hundreds of times I've traversed state lines I've never paid a cent. But you must be right so I completely concede my well thought out point for your single unverified response.
Transportation has a cost.
Finding accomidation has a cost.
Moving has a cost.
Finding a job has a cost.
States don't have free entry and exit.
|
United States7483 Posts
On January 07 2012 09:36 EternaLLegacy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 15:47 Whitewing wrote:On January 06 2012 15:38 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 06 2012 14:47 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 14:38 OsoVega wrote:On January 06 2012 14:27 Haemonculus wrote:On January 06 2012 14:02 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 13:37 Risen wrote:
I'm a little confused by some politicians' views on things. How many states do you really think will actually pass legislation banning things like birth control, pornography, gay marriage, etc. ((All these things increase standards of living in the places they are legal))
If you live in a very conservative state, and these things are banned awesome. That's your right as a state, but have you thought about the economic impact? It wouldn't be a short-term impact, but a long-term impact. People naturally want to live in an area with a higher standard of living, so if you pass legislation barring these things people will move out of your state. Less tax revenue leads to a shitty state. OR what could happen, is the country will become even more polarized.
It's proven in studies that more educated people support these basic SoL increases. What you'll eventually have is an uneducated mass of states and a highly educated mass of states both vying for national power. Bad news imo. None of this stuff will affect me directly, I live in Nevada, I'm not going to have to worry about these things passing, but it still seems pretty shitty when you look at the direction national discourse is taking.
I mean, Santorum as a serious candidate Iowa? Santorum: "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." What the hell? I'm a white male, ergo I'm almost guaranteed to be a conservative, and I can say without a doubt that isn't how traditional conservatives view the world. Traditional Christians? Probably a lot closer to the mark. Traditional conservatives to me means limited government, socially and fiscally.
Anywho, NDAA passing means I won't be voting for the Obama-llama and I can't bring myself to vote for Romney at the moment... so another write-in year, I guess. There are plenty of places with terrible living conditions and terrible education, and those are the same states that will pass such laws. Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. And no, people tend not to think about economic impact when it comes to social issues, even though they usually have massive economic impact. I mean gay marriage certainly would have positive economic impact, but I rarely hear about people using it as an argument. There were school counties in Georgia and Mississippi holding racially segregated proms as late as 2008. Minority students are prohibited from attending "white prom". These states absolutely might pass some crazy legislation. And people like Ron Paul would do nothing to stop it. Just read his 'We the People Act' which is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Wow that's pretty fucked up. Although it doesn't violate the first amendment because the first amendment only says "Congress shall make no law..." Come to think of it, I never considered that state legislatures could basically do whatever under strict interpretation. That's really scary. Yea, now I sort of understand why Jon Stewart asked him if he would have preferred the Articles of Confederation. It is, but you have to think of states as capitalism in government. 50 states compete with each other, and if states are really going to be that draconian and backwater, they're going to quickly find themselves in bad shape, as everyone but the most ignorant people leave for somewhere better. States don't have free entry and exit. Weird... I guess it's a fluke that the hundreds of times I've traversed state lines I've never paid a cent. But you must be right so I completely concede my well thought out point for your single unverified response.
Free entry and exit in the concept of economic theory, I didn't mean in the literal sense of crossing the borders.
|
On January 07 2012 09:45 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 09:36 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 06 2012 15:47 Whitewing wrote:On January 06 2012 15:38 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 06 2012 14:47 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 14:38 OsoVega wrote:On January 06 2012 14:27 Haemonculus wrote:On January 06 2012 14:02 DoubleReed wrote:On January 06 2012 13:37 Risen wrote:
I'm a little confused by some politicians' views on things. How many states do you really think will actually pass legislation banning things like birth control, pornography, gay marriage, etc. ((All these things increase standards of living in the places they are legal))
If you live in a very conservative state, and these things are banned awesome. That's your right as a state, but have you thought about the economic impact? It wouldn't be a short-term impact, but a long-term impact. People naturally want to live in an area with a higher standard of living, so if you pass legislation barring these things people will move out of your state. Less tax revenue leads to a shitty state. OR what could happen, is the country will become even more polarized.
It's proven in studies that more educated people support these basic SoL increases. What you'll eventually have is an uneducated mass of states and a highly educated mass of states both vying for national power. Bad news imo. None of this stuff will affect me directly, I live in Nevada, I'm not going to have to worry about these things passing, but it still seems pretty shitty when you look at the direction national discourse is taking.
I mean, Santorum as a serious candidate Iowa? Santorum: "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world." What the hell? I'm a white male, ergo I'm almost guaranteed to be a conservative, and I can say without a doubt that isn't how traditional conservatives view the world. Traditional Christians? Probably a lot closer to the mark. Traditional conservatives to me means limited government, socially and fiscally.
Anywho, NDAA passing means I won't be voting for the Obama-llama and I can't bring myself to vote for Romney at the moment... so another write-in year, I guess. There are plenty of places with terrible living conditions and terrible education, and those are the same states that will pass such laws. Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. And no, people tend not to think about economic impact when it comes to social issues, even though they usually have massive economic impact. I mean gay marriage certainly would have positive economic impact, but I rarely hear about people using it as an argument. There were school counties in Georgia and Mississippi holding racially segregated proms as late as 2008. Minority students are prohibited from attending "white prom". These states absolutely might pass some crazy legislation. And people like Ron Paul would do nothing to stop it. Just read his 'We the People Act' which is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Wow that's pretty fucked up. Although it doesn't violate the first amendment because the first amendment only says "Congress shall make no law..." Come to think of it, I never considered that state legislatures could basically do whatever under strict interpretation. That's really scary. Yea, now I sort of understand why Jon Stewart asked him if he would have preferred the Articles of Confederation. It is, but you have to think of states as capitalism in government. 50 states compete with each other, and if states are really going to be that draconian and backwater, they're going to quickly find themselves in bad shape, as everyone but the most ignorant people leave for somewhere better. States don't have free entry and exit. Weird... I guess it's a fluke that the hundreds of times I've traversed state lines I've never paid a cent. But you must be right so I completely concede my well thought out point for your single unverified response. Free entry and exit in the concept of economic theory, I didn't mean in the literal sense of crossing the borders.
All action has opportunity cost. That's not a legitimate objection to federalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
