|
|
On October 23 2012 05:45 Leporello wrote:
A more interesting comparison than alcohol would be medical marijuana.
Look at California's struggles with medical marijuana. Is it legal? The state says "yes", but the DEA arrests medical marijuana dispenseries constantly. The law differs on a state and national level, and the result is actually freaking chaotic.
You want to do that to abortion across the country? Who thinks that would be a good thing?
We would have to get rid of the federal law first and leave it entirely up to the states.
|
On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you."
wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader
|
On October 23 2012 05:46 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you." No liberals in this thread have hinted at advocating an isolationist policy as far as I can remember.
I was more referring to their group in general (along with isolationist libertarians).
|
On October 23 2012 05:46 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 05:45 Leporello wrote:
A more interesting comparison than alcohol would be medical marijuana.
Look at California's struggles with medical marijuana. Is it legal? The state says "yes", but the DEA arrests medical marijuana dispenseries constantly. The law differs on a state and national level, and the result is actually freaking chaotic.
You want to do that to abortion across the country? Who thinks that would be a good thing? We would have to get rid of the federal law first and leave it entirely up to the states.
So write a federal law banning abortion, then have states legalize it anyways at risk of federal persecution?
Or write a federal law allowing abortion (provided we overturn Roe v. Wade), then have states outlaw it regardless, forcing women to travel across country for a medical procedure?
Both those options seem problematic.
I think what we got now works fine. There are some issues that can not be decided on a State level. Medical procedures are plainly one of them.
|
On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you." wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader
Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism.
|
On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you." wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism.
And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though).
As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you." wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism.
I think I speak for us all when I say those people are bat shit crazy. Generally, liberals are not isolationist. We just don't like being aggressors.
|
On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you."
Before burrying yourself in those myths, would it be possible to get you to actually look up the facts? Just from this small sample:
- Finland is already part of EU and more so than Denmark, Sweden and Great Britain since they have the EURO.
- EU doesn't really have a coordinated military at the moment. The military cooperation will improve, but it is almost impossible for EU to create a common army given its treaties...
- I havent heard of anyone wanting to cancel alliances, but Romney has mentioned that he do not wish to respect UN in the case of Iran...
- Most countries are able to sustain a fine military without US bases and the US bases have not always been that popular locally. Not saying close them, but...
|
On October 23 2012 05:53 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you." wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. I think I speak for us all when I say those people are bat shit crazy. Generally, liberals are not isolationist. We just don't like being aggressors.
My liberal friend is generally fairly rational in most other things, but when it comes to foreign policy and foreign trade, he's pretty far out there. According to him, installing devastating tariffs and trade barriers will prevent foreign countries from stealing American jobs...
|
On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you." wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though). As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate?
I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice),
|
1019 Posts
On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you." wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though). As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice),
I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support.
|
On October 23 2012 05:54 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you." Before burrying yourself in those myths, would it be possible to get you to actually look up the facts? Just from this small sample: - Finland is already part of EU and more so than Denmark, Sweden and Great Britain since they have the EURO. - EU doesn't really have a coordinated military at the moment. The military cooperation will improve, but it is almost impossible for EU to create a common army given its treaties... - I havent heard of anyone wanting to cancel alliances, but Romney has mentioned that he do not wish to respect UN in the case of Iran... - Most countries are able to sustain a fine military without US bases and the US bases have not always been that popular locally. Not saying close them, but...
- I know Finland is part of the EU, but I can almost guarantee you that if Finland was invaded right now, the EU countries would come to her rescue.
- While that may be true now, I imagine in the future they will have a common-military, assuming the EU doesn't collapse.
- Ron Paul and most libertarians in general want to cancel all treaties. Some lefties want to get rid of our bases and treaties as well.
- Most countries militaries are extremely weak compared to the American military, and in some cases, they are weak compared to their neighbors (Taiwan vs China, for instance). Also, if the people in a country don't want America to be there anymore, then they can vote for a party/politician to get them out. I'm pretty sure most people in foreign countries either like or don't mind American bases in their country, it's only a small, but vocal, minority that doesn't. Take Germany for instance, there is not a single parliamentary party that is advocating for closing American military bases and/or leaving NATO.
|
On October 23 2012 05:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I've dragged this thread into the gutter long enough:
my debate predictions:
I think Republicans are in a dangerous position right now. Obama is by no means beaten, and though he is weak, he is still in a position of power and still has some flexibility. Romney has to accomplish two things (IMO) with this debate:
1) he must solidify the perception that Obama is both weak and dishonest about his foreign policy (and that this can be carried over to his domestic policy)
2) he must maintain his own likability, and hopefully make gains in presenting himself as a viable alternative to Obama.
foreign policy is always a tough one, for both sides. Obama can't risk looking weak or soft, but then Romney can't risk losing his "relatively moderate" image. if he comes out looking like he wants war (Romney), than this could be a very bad debate for the GOP, in both the Senate and the Pres. election. on the other hand, if Obama comes out looking confused or soft, than it is possible that he could be toppled tonight. the killing of Osama bin Laden is definitely going to help Obama here, and I have a feeling that he's gonna hammer that home with everything he's got. (rightfully so, it is an accomplishment of sorts). Romney is going to have a pretty heavy challenge in trying to portray how the killing of Osama is not as important as Obama says, while not appearing to negate the value of taking out Enemy Number 1.
Romney: he's gonna hammer Libya, Fast and Furious, and Iran. he will try to show how there is a systematic failure of the Obama admin. to bring our enemies to justice or to bring our allies to the table. he will paint the chaos in the ME and in North-Africa as a natural result of Obama's policies and rhetoric.
Obama: he's going to have two objectives here. hit Romney with the recent info coming out of Libya (suggests that the video may have played a part) and drive home the image of Romney as both inexperienced and rash. he will need to deflect any and all questions and attacks on Fast&Furious, because this issue just isn't going to win him anything. the best he can hope for is that the focus remains off of it, as the Latino vote is going to be very important here.
I expect a tie or a Romney win (slight). Obama does better than the previous two debates, but not quite enough to heal all of the cuts he's taken. still, I expect the bleeding to have stopped by the nights end.
I saw Chris Matthews, of all people, making a point that I actually agreed with about the debate. He stated that the first candidate to pivot that the first thing we need to do to fix foreign policy is to fix the economy at home has a good chance at winning the debate.
The foreign policy debate is a hard one for the challenger to "win". With that being said what Romney needs to do is similar to what he needed to do in the first debate. He has to come across as a viable alternative. If all he does is manage to look practical and reasonable he can win or at worst can come out with a draw. My hope is that he doesn't try too overtly to try to come up with a one liner to hit the President on Libya. When he goes out of his way to try to score a "zinger" he gets himself in trouble.
As for the President, he can win, but in order to do so he needs to successfully paint Romney as dangerous. In addition he needs to somehow bring closure on the Bengazi debacle. Right now the administration looks either incompetent or trying to cover up what really happened. They really messed the aftermath up and if he can manage some type of contrition I think he can put it behind him. Of course he will talk about killing Bin Laden, but in my mind needs to make sure to give credit to our intelligence and military and not go with a, "I killed Bin Laden" type of line.
Either way, I think the foreign policy debate is hard for either to outright "win" mainly because foreign policy is complicated and nuanced and that's hard to get across in a debate format. It also doesn't help that most of America doesn't really understand it.
For the person that linked Jaime Dupree, you are the man! Dupree is a great political journalist (and as unbiased as anyone I've ever heard/read) and is the main reason I listen to Boortz in the 11 o'clock hour. He's very, very good.
|
On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you." wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though). As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support.
Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0.
|
On October 23 2012 05:38 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 05:20 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 04:54 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:26 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:08 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 03:56 Adreme wrote:On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
compromise would be to allow the states to decide, not to, by fiat, have unelected officials determine that nationwide abortion is legal. That would a different compromise. You are offering a compromise over who whereas they compromised over when. in a situation where one side is saying: "never" and the other side is saying "sometimes" i don't see how it ending up being "sometimes" is all that much of a compromise.... On October 23 2012 03:57 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
compromise would be to allow the states to decide, not to, by fiat, have unelected officials determine that nationwide abortion is legal. You're talking about a right to a medical procedure. That is NOT how we decide rights in this country. Women with rights in one state, but without rights in another state? Where do you get these ideas? If a woman has a right to abortion -- then that applies to all women, everywhere in this country. state's rights is not some new issue. it is, in fact, older than this country. so, you'll forgive me for assuming that the position of a state's rights proponent is valid, considering the fact that it has remained a concern for many in this country for the last 250 years... Sorry, but no. States have some rights to make their own legislation -- but that has never and should never include matters of civil rights. Unless you're a Confederate, I guess. But you guys lost that war, so guess what, civil rights are not decided by states anymore. edit: In closing, I'll just point to the fact that even our conservative Supreme Court agrees with me on this, especially in regards to abortion. You can not deny women in certain states a right that other women in America have. It is disgustingly unfair that a woman should be denied a medical procedure based on what state she lives in. ok, i'm gonna take these points one by one: 1) states have always had the right to choose, to some degree, which "civil rights" they consider to be valid and which they do not. capital punishment is a good example, as is the Mass. "Romneycare" issue. Drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are other issues of "civil rights" that have, traditionally, been left largely to the states. you're history is flawed here. 2) I am a Republican, we fought the Confederates in the Civil War and in the Civil Rights battle. besides this is an ad hominem attack. also, to suggest that only Confederates (racists is what you really meant) would hold a position that promotes state's rights is... well, let's just say that is isn't exactly intellectually honest. 3) Clarence Thomas in particular has mentioned that the Roe decision was an overreach of federal authority. this claim that every conservative Justice agrees with you is wildly false. 4) States can, and do, provide different rights to the citizens of their state. this is a tradition older than this country. again, you are in the wrong historically. You're trying really hard to not understand the abortion issue. 1)Yes, states have some individuality when it comes legislation. But not when it comes to rights. No state can ban alcohol, but they can limit its sale. States can decide whether to execute people for capital crimes, but that only directly effects the offenders and no one else. No rights are being decided here. Whereas with abortion, you are telling all the women of one state that they can't have a medical procedure that other women in the country do have a right to. That's wrong, and the Supreme Court agrees with me. 2)You inferred all that. My only point was the Civil War was fought over this very issue. States do not have the right to legislate their own Bill of Rights. Basic rights are something we need to share, as a nation, or they don't work. But if you want to think I called you a racist... well... then this conversation is at a loss, because I never came anywhere close to insinuating that. But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why. 3)Clarence Thomas is not the Supreme Court. 4)No, they don't. You're simply wrong. How do you justify telling women that they can't get a medical procedure that women all across the country are getting, because they happen to live in the wrong state? So they have to move to another state, or make the trip their to get a medical procedure? Who compensates them for that? It is plainly ridiculous and unfair to say that women's right to abortion should be divided by state lines. And, yes, the Supreme Court agrees with me 1) many counties have banned alcohol. capital punishment effects everyone (see: deterrence and/or cost of maintenance). also, it has long been held that prisoners/criminals do have rights and that Capital punishment does concern these rights. the current Supreme Court agrees with you, but the Courts have been known to change positions, and also have been known to be in the wrong on the issue of civil rights. (see Dredd Scott) appealing to the Supreme Court is simply a fallacious appeal to authority. 2) the Civil War was fought over the specific right of the states to 1) protect slavery and 2) secede from the Union. at no point was it ever considered that it was a fight over the broad rights of states to determine what constitutes a civil right and what doesn't. nor was it held to have ended the discussion over what constitutes a "basic right" and what doesn't. you called me a Confederate, obviously appealing toward the racism that they held. you again insinuated it with this comment: "But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why." 3) You made the claim that all conservative members of the Supreme Court agree with you. Clarence Thomas is a Justice who disagrees with you, thus his disagreement is all I need to prove this assertion false. further, I am not aware that any conservative (or liberal for that matter) on the Court agrees with your strange perception of states rights. 4) this isn't even arguable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)http://www.aclu.org/know-your-voting-rights-state-state-voter-informationI justify it by saying: 1) the "right" should not exist in the first place, and, 2) that she can always go to another state if she wishes to have that "right". just as I can go to a different state than NY if I wish to have the right to carry a concealed weapon. they can pay for their own fees, just as any other person can and should, and the Supreme Court is known for changing it's mind. 1) Now you're talking about counties. No state can ban alcohol. Country ordinances are a whole different level of government. Because driving to another county to find access to something you want is a lot easier than driving to another state -- which is just one of many reasons why counties are allowed to make stern regulations that the State can not. Your analogy failed. This isn't about "county" rights, it's about State's rights. 2)The Civil War was a State's rights issue. States wanted freedom to define slavery for themselves, but how could a country operate with states being so completely at odds with each other's rights? Abortion might not be as divisive or morally black-and-white as slavery, but to have states deciding for themselves whether to allow abortion or not would create a completely unnecessary divide between our states. And for what purpose? What good does it do for Texas to ban abortion and force its women to travel to another state to have the procedure anyways? That is obviously the only reason I brought up the Civil War in my original post in this discussion. You chose to infer something racist. I can't help that, but I will point out your defensiveness. If you don't want to talk about racism, then don't bring it up. But since you did bring up racism, I'll gladly ask why. 3) I said the conservative Supreme Court agrees with me, and it does. I did not, ever, ever say all the members of the court agree with me, don't put words in my mouth because your point failed. The Supreme Court, which is majority conservative, is upholding Roe V. Wade. 4) Again, we're talking about a medical procedure. What if the women is having difficulty with her pregnancy, and the cross-country trip to have an abortion might put her life at further risk? Why create this problem? Why make this hardship for women? Because you care about State's rights? Really? 1. This is wrong. Counties are subsets of State governments, and therefore anything vested into a county government is actually a state power. He was right. The reason this is allowed is that no state (that I'm aware of) has a law mandating that alcohol is legal. Therefore there is no supremacy issue when the county bans it. You keep talking about rights and federal power, yet it's patently clear you know nothing about the issue. Please stop lecturing. No. Counties are subsets of the State, yes, but so what? A county banning alcohol is not the same as a state banning alcohol, obviously. The Supreme Court could and would step in to overturn the State, whereas counties are subject to States' Supreme Courts. You're arguing semantics at best here. A county can ban alcohol, but a state would surely be overturned in making such a decision. Are you arguing that county ordinances are of the same national importance as State's laws? Because that's what it sounds like. Also, this is alcohol. Abortion is a medical procedure. Denying people medical procedures is a lot different than denying them alcohol, but on a State level -- not a local level -- neither would be permissible by our Supreme Court. Some states come close to banning alcohol -- but they can only limit it. Whereas there are counties and towns all over the country that ban the sale of alcohol completely. State laws and local laws are not equivocal.
No. Again, you have no understanding of how the Federal/State relationship works.
The Supreme Court (and the federal government) has no ability to interfere with State/County laws when they do not violate the Constitution. This is called federal subject jurisdiction.
County laws ARE state laws. It is the state power that invests the rule-making authority to the county level. You're right, they can ban it if they want, and that overrides the county law. But that's only because it's a state law that delegates that authority in the first place. There is nothing in the constitution that requires a state to have a county. State laws and local laws are identical when discussing federal/state relations.
|
On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you." wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though). As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0.
Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things.
|
On October 23 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you." wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though). As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things.
Moderate? A "moderate" who supports universal healthcare, opposes gun rights, opposes gay rights, supports the welfare state, supports the war on drugs, etc.
Doesn't sound like a moderate to me, sounds more like a liberal statist scumbag.
|
|
|
On October 23 2012 07:10 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you." wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though). As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things. Moderate? A "moderate" who supports universal healthcare, opposes gun rights, opposes gay rights, supports the welfare state, supports the war on drugs, etc. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me, sounds more like a liberal statist scumbag.
In his recent position, Romney is actually ultra conservative. If you take his whole career, he is a moderate Republican.
Of course anybody who is not a complete fascist is a lefty, from what I read.
|
On October 23 2012 07:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 07:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you." wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though). As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things. Moderate? A "moderate" who supports universal healthcare, opposes gun rights, opposes gay rights, supports the welfare state, supports the war on drugs, etc. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me, sounds more like a liberal statist scumbag. In his recent position, Romney is actually ultra conservative. If you take his whole career, he is a moderate Republican. Of course anybody who is not a complete fascist is a lefty, from what I read.
Fascists are really no different from socialists. Under both fascism and socialism, the state dominates all industries and the state is superior to the individual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
