Fox News specifically invited those people there at that time, since it's a breakfast/lunch only diner. The restaurant had been closed for business for 7 hours when the debate started. Objective reporting? Objective focus group? _________________ aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
After reading the first blog, then the context, that blog is jacked-up. It wasn't just a clip taken out of context, but several clips, all put together as though there was nothing in between. That's the kind of hack job I expect from Michael Moore.
I just read the text on the rockwell site and the whole thing made me wince. All state's righters ever argue is that X government should have this or that power and not Y government. What's the difference? Apparently only a biblical literalist's attitude to The Constitution which destroys what it means to protect by discarding meaning in favor of verbiage. This is why I am sorely underwhelmed by, to use the popular parlance, strict constructionists.
Quote:
Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values.
How are the centralized powers of states any different, besides that of size?
Quote:
The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system.
Why?
Quote:
Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty.
Huh? It's either control by the big government or the little government. He's talking out his ass here. In my opinion, the separation of state and federal powers is a good idea but it has nothing (indeed, can't have anything) to do with individual liberty.
He also takes the time to jump on the judicial activist bandwagon. Who are these rogue judges (Paul's vicious term)? If there are any (and I'm sure there are a few. There are a few rogues of about anything) their number is certainly well below the threshold of serious. We've seen the same thing from Republicans many times in recent years, one example being the call for tort reform due to the massive impact of frivolous lawsuits. Just as in the original example, certainly there are some frivolous lawsuits but the effect this has on the problem that tort reform is propagandized to be needed to solve is fractional, their massive impact a fiction. _________________ K Michau
Now this religion happens to prevail/Until by that one it is overthrown/Because men dare not live with men alone/But always with another fairy tale.
al-Ma'arri, Syrian Poet, died 1057
You deny the existence of 999 alleged Gods. I merely deny one more - yours.
John MacKinnon Robertson, "Godism" 1896
Joined: 25 Apr 2004 Posts: 7247 Local time: 8:42 PM Location: Next door.
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:11 am Post subject:
kmisho wrote:
Quote:
Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values.
How are the centralized powers of states any different, besides that of size?
Quote:
The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system.
Why?
You have the answer within your own questions.
Do you think it's good to make EVERYONE suffer under bad laws, or just a few -- who would still have the right to travel elsewhere within a federation to avoid bad laws?
Abortion is a perfect example. Why trust a federal executive with sweeping powers NOT to fuck your rights, when you might otherwise just travel across a state line or two to circumvent local butt-fuck Jesus state law?
Consolidation of power is tyranny. Crossing your fingers that it will be your particular brand of tyranny -- for ever, is short sighted, and fucken dangerous. _________________ "-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea.
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 10021 Local time: 10:42 PM Location: USA
Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 9:23 am Post subject:
kmisho wrote:
I just read the text on the rockwell site and the whole thing made me wince. All state's righters ever argue is that X government should have this or that power and not Y government. What's the difference?
Scope. Accountability. The fact that the constitution is supposed to be a contract among sovereign states, not an overarching government carving out fiefdoms for cronies.
kmisho wrote:
Apparently only a biblical literalist's attitude to The Constitution
Yeah, it's soooooooooooooooooooooooo wrong to strictly read a contract. If a contract says such-and-such will be delivered at such and such time for such and such price and it's not delivered ever, we can let that slip, right? After all: contracts are fluid. Words mean whatever we want them to whenever we want them to. We can ignore contract wordings whenever they become inconvenient.
Your stance is the same as Bush's. _________________ aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Joined: 05 Dec 2005 Posts: 4683 Local time: 2:42 PM Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:59 am Post subject:
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Scope. Accountability. The fact that the constitution is supposed to be a contract among sovereign states, not an overarching government carving out fiefdoms for cronies.
I still see no difference. State laws are the same as national laws if the state is the largest division. The state would then BE the nation.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
kmisho wrote:
Apparently only a biblical literalist's attitude to The Constitution
Yeah, it's soooooooooooooooooooooooo wrong to strictly read a contract. If a contract says such-and-such will be delivered at such and such time for such and such price and it's not delivered ever, we can let that slip, right? After all: contracts are fluid. Words mean whatever we want them to whenever we want them to. We can ignore contract wordings whenever they become inconvenient.
When the contract is hundreds of years old and the way things are now are very different, yeah. Honestly, I think we need a new constitution but I can't think of any politicians I would trust with writing or approving of it!
In the loosest way, I suppose it could be that Bush and I agree the constituion should be changed. But I would not agree with him on just about any particular of those changes... _________________ K Michau
Now this religion happens to prevail/Until by that one it is overthrown/Because men dare not live with men alone/But always with another fairy tale.
al-Ma'arri, Syrian Poet, died 1057
You deny the existence of 999 alleged Gods. I merely deny one more - yours.
John MacKinnon Robertson, "Godism" 1896
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 10021 Local time: 10:42 PM Location: USA
Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:05 pm Post subject:
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Scope. Accountability. The fact that the constitution is supposed to be a contract among sovereign states, not an overarching government carving out fiefdoms for cronies.
kmisho wrote:
I still see no difference.
Then I guess you think the UN created every nation and rules over all of them in a supergovernment.
kmisho wrote:
State laws are the same as national laws if the state is the largest division. The state would then BE the nation.
Yes, and?
kmisho wrote:
Apparently only a biblical literalist's attitude to The Constitution
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yeah, it's soooooooooooooooooooooooo wrong to strictly read a contract. If a contract says such-and-such will be delivered at such and such time for such and such price and it's not delivered ever, we can let that slip, right? After all: contracts are fluid. Words mean whatever we want them to whenever we want them to. We can ignore contract wordings whenever they become inconvenient.
kmisho wrote:
When the contract is hundreds of years old
Irrelevant.
kmisho wrote:
and the way things are now are very different, yeah.
Ah, so you think contracts can be ignored on a whim.
kmisho wrote:
Honestly, I think we need a new constitution but I can't think of any politicians I would trust with writing or approving of it!
In the loosest way, I suppose it could be that Bush and I agree the constituion should be changed. But I would not agree with him on just about any particular of those changes...
But you and he have the same stance: ignore the constitution whenever you feel it should be ignored. _________________ aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Joined: 05 Dec 2005 Posts: 4683 Local time: 2:42 PM Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:56 am Post subject:
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Scope. Accountability. The fact that the constitution is supposed to be a contract among sovereign states, not an overarching government carving out fiefdoms for cronies.
kmisho wrote:
I still see no difference.
Then I guess you think the UN created every nation and rules over all of them in a supergovernment.
kmisho wrote:
State laws are the same as national laws if the state is the largest division. The state would then BE the nation.
Yes, and?
kmisho wrote:
Apparently only a biblical literalist's attitude to The Constitution
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yeah, it's soooooooooooooooooooooooo wrong to strictly read a contract. If a contract says such-and-such will be delivered at such and such time for such and such price and it's not delivered ever, we can let that slip, right? After all: contracts are fluid. Words mean whatever we want them to whenever we want them to. We can ignore contract wordings whenever they become inconvenient.
kmisho wrote:
When the contract is hundreds of years old
Irrelevant.
kmisho wrote:
and the way things are now are very different, yeah.
Ah, so you think contracts can be ignored on a whim.
kmisho wrote:
Honestly, I think we need a new constitution but I can't think of any politicians I would trust with writing or approving of it!
In the loosest way, I suppose it could be that Bush and I agree the constituion should be changed. But I would not agree with him on just about any particular of those changes...
But you and he have the same stance: ignore the constitution whenever you feel it should be ignored.
Admit it! This was one of your worst replies to anyone ever. _________________ K Michau
Now this religion happens to prevail/Until by that one it is overthrown/Because men dare not live with men alone/But always with another fairy tale.
al-Ma'arri, Syrian Poet, died 1057
You deny the existence of 999 alleged Gods. I merely deny one more - yours.
John MacKinnon Robertson, "Godism" 1896
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 Posts: 3942 Local time: 6:42 AM Location: Poland
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:03 pm Post subject:
kmisho wrote:
Admit it! This was one of your worst replies to anyone ever.
Why don't you just answer his points?
Law is supposed to be law. You say it's obsolete, fine, so change it.
But you said it can be ignored based on nothing but your personal preference.
You say there's no difference between state and federal control, why don't you answer Cheaps post then? _________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea.
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 10021 Local time: 10:42 PM Location: USA
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject:
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Scope. Accountability. The fact that the constitution is supposed to be a contract among sovereign states, not an overarching government carving out fiefdoms for cronies.
kmisho wrote:
I still see no difference.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Then I guess you think the UN created every nation and rules over all of them in a supergovernment.
kmisho wrote:
State laws are the same as national laws if the state is the largest division. The state would then BE the nation.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yes, and?
kmisho wrote:
Apparently only a biblical literalist's attitude to The Constitution
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yeah, it's soooooooooooooooooooooooo wrong to strictly read a contract. If a contract says such-and-such will be delivered at such and such time for such and such price and it's not delivered ever, we can let that slip, right? After all: contracts are fluid. Words mean whatever we want them to whenever we want them to. We can ignore contract wordings whenever they become inconvenient.
kmisho wrote:
When the contract is hundreds of years old
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Irrelevant.
kmisho wrote:
and the way things are now are very different, yeah.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Ah, so you think contracts can be ignored on a whim.
kmisho wrote:
Honestly, I think we need a new constitution but I can't think of any politicians I would trust with writing or approving of it!
In the loosest way, I suppose it could be that Bush and I agree the constituion should be changed. But I would not agree with him on just about any particular of those changes...
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
But you and he have the same stance: ignore the constitution whenever you feel it should be ignored.
kmisho wrote:
Admit it! This was one of your worst replies to anyone ever.
How nice of you to ignore everything I wrote. Please try again. This time: don't be a coward. _________________ aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Joined: 05 Dec 2005 Posts: 4683 Local time: 2:42 PM Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:48 pm Post subject:
I'll break this down into little tiny bits and even digest it for you so it doesn't take any work:
kmisho wrote:
State laws are the same as national laws if the state is the largest division. The state would then BE the nation.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yes, and?
And...having a preference of state law over national law or vice versa, or national over UN law or vice versa is like prefering the pink cotton candy to the blue cotton candy. The difference is cosmetic. There is no substance in the preference. And if there's one thing I can't stand it is insubstantial preferences, especially when they are argued for so vehemently.
The pink cotton candy is a whole lot better than the blue cotton candy and you're a moron if you think any differently! _________________ K Michau
Now this religion happens to prevail/Until by that one it is overthrown/Because men dare not live with men alone/But always with another fairy tale.
al-Ma'arri, Syrian Poet, died 1057
You deny the existence of 999 alleged Gods. I merely deny one more - yours.
John MacKinnon Robertson, "Godism" 1896
Joined: 02 Apr 2003 Posts: 12846 Local time: 8:42 PM Location: SoCal, USA
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:53 pm Post subject:
kmisho wrote:
I'll break this down into little tiny bits and even digest it for you so it doesn't take any work:
kmisho wrote:
State laws are the same as national laws if the state is the largest division. The state would then BE the nation.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yes, and?
And...having a preference of state law over national law or vice versa, or national over UN law or vice versa is like prefering the pink cotton candy to the blue cotton candy. The difference is cosmetic. There is no substance in the preference. And if there's one thing I can't stand it is insubstantial preferences, especially when they are argued for so vehemently.
The pink cotton candy is a whole lot better than the blue cotton candy and you're a moron if you think any differently!
If state law sucks, you can move to a different state. If "planetary law" sucks, you can't move to a different planet. _________________ Namaste,
CET
Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 10021 Local time: 10:42 PM Location: USA
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm Post subject:
kmisho wrote:
I'll break this down into little tiny bits
Because we all know that's the only way you can handle anything.
kmisho wrote:
State laws are the same as national laws if the state is the largest division. The state would then BE the nation.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yes, and?
kmisho wrote:
And...having a preference of state law over national law or vice versa, or national over UN law or vice versa is like prefering the pink cotton candy to the blue cotton candy.
So what you're saying is that you love invalid analogies and refuse to address the point. That figures. _________________ aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Joined: 27 Aug 2003 Posts: 23071 Local time: 11:42 PM Location: Warner Robins, GA
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:01 pm Post subject:
CET wrote:
kmisho wrote:
I'll break this down into little tiny bits and even digest it for you so it doesn't take any work:
kmisho wrote:
State laws are the same as national laws if the state is the largest division. The state would then BE the nation.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yes, and?
And...having a preference of state law over national law or vice versa, or national over UN law or vice versa is like prefering the pink cotton candy to the blue cotton candy. The difference is cosmetic. There is no substance in the preference. And if there's one thing I can't stand it is insubstantial preferences, especially when they are argued for so vehemently.
The pink cotton candy is a whole lot better than the blue cotton candy and you're a moron if you think any differently!
If state law sucks, you can move to a different state. If "planetary law" sucks, you can't move to a different planet.
but, you CAN move to another country/nation which is the biggest division we're realistically able to talk about, though.
your point is probably why "One World Government" conspiracy people are the way they are... _________________ -=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
