|
United States7483 Posts
On January 07 2012 11:21 EternaLLegacy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 09:45 Whitewing wrote: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.
It most certainly is when we're discussing the right of a state to pass laws which may be extremely problematic for some, if the opportunity cost of leaving is extremely high (as it is for a lot of people), it's a travesty. Regardless, the point I was making was that the analogy was towards free market capitalism, which requires free entry and exit to function properly, is not a good one.
|
On January 07 2012 11:27 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 11:21 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 07 2012 09:45 Whitewing wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It most certainly is when we're discussing the right of a state to pass laws which may be extremely problematic for some, if the opportunity cost of leaving is extremely high (as it is for a lot of people), it's a travesty. Regardless, the point I was making was that the analogy was towards free market capitalism, which requires free entry and exit to function properly, is not a good one.
That's why we have a Federal government, to ensure free travel between states, among other reasons. Besides, you can just extend your logic to nations, and suddenly the entire US is criminal, because we make it nearly impossible to freely move in and out of the country.
|
On January 07 2012 09:15 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 08:57 Falling 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. 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. 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. 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.
Your argument is that it's easier to relocate as you approach a level of poor that is so low that you don't have enough money for food, clothes, shelter or transportation?
Like, really?
I'm glad the poor have it so good, because the low-but-not-poor class have it absolutely shitty. It's nice to know there's something to fall back on that leads to greater opportunity. Who would have guessed you had to completely bottom out before things got easier? Man, if only moderately poor people knew what they were missing. They should just quit their shitty jobs and lose their shitty houses and stop paying their shitty bills and go completely homeless with no outs. It would be so much easier to find opportunity!
|
|
|
Every politician is associated with lobbyists and every President is associated with Wall Street. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr., all of them. Stop going out of your way of claiming "Oh look at me I'm clean" when you're not.
|
One more reason to distrust Ron Paul, I guess. By the way, they love him on Fox News, don't they?
On January 08 2012 03:57 xXFireandIceXx wrote:Every politician is associated with lobbyists and every President is associated with Wall Street. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr., all of them. Stop going out of your way of claiming "Oh look at me I'm clean" when you're not.
Obama seems to be the only president America has had for ever who has the balls to denounciate Wall Street and the oligarchy of billionaire that make everything to have the rules distorted in their favor, it seems.
|
On January 08 2012 04:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:O ne more reason to distrust Ron Paul, I guess. By the way, they love him on Fox News, don't they? Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 03:57 xXFireandIceXx wrote:Every politician is associated with lobbyists and every President is associated with Wall Street. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr., all of them. Stop going out of your way of claiming "Oh look at me I'm clean" when you're not. Obama seems to be the only president America has had for ever who has the balls to denounciate Wall Street and the oligarchy of billionaire that make everything to have the rules distorted in their favor, it seems.
This is rather unexpected . Why would a man who was involved in the group that is known and been proven to be the biggest drug dealers in the history of the world support Dr Paul ..?
This shit seem like a crazy piece of fiction movie something ... ;o
|
|
|
Am I the only one laughing while watching this debate? Is it intended to be funny?
|
Did Romney really attack Obama on Foreign Policy?
|
More importantly, why is anyone watching the debate instead of football? =p
Anyway, for those watching, is Newt going after Romney?
|
Ron Paul just showed Perry the door he should listen.
As for Gingrich, your father in the military doesn't count as you serving as well.
|
Hmm there's a lack of audience cheering and clapping in this debate, it makes it feel a bit empty
|
On January 08 2012 11:30 xDaunt wrote:
More importantly, why is anyone watching the debate instead of football? =p
Anyway, for those watching, is Newt going after Romney?
Because sports are more important than our country's possible future 
|
"Do you believe that the states have the right to ban contraception?"
It's been three minutes. Romney hasn't answered the question.
|
All Romney had to do was choose Yes or No and now he is looking like an idiot.
|
No wonder everyone hates Romney O.o
|
Santorum just had a Perry moment.
|
|
|
Oh watching this hurts...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
