Living under Obama's presidency


Off-Topic Discussions

1,451 to 1,500 of 1,595 << first < prev | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


You're right. Several states did oppose slavery before the federal government did. Other states continued slavery and tried to expand it to new territories. When it came down to it, it was the federal government that ended slavery in the US. It wasn't done state by state.
Do you think that was a bad thing? That the federal government shouldn't have done so? In fact, should have allowed it to continue to spread west, since that's closer to what the actual issue was at the start.
Or do you just think the federal government was evil for allowing it at all and can not be forgiven for not stopping it from the beginning?

What is your point here anyway?

What I think most of this shows is that the federal government is not a kind of tyrannical overwhelming force. It has tended to stabilize things until enough of the states have moved, then drag the others along. That doesn't seem like a bad approach to me.

NO! I dont think it was a bad thing. It should have stopped slavery from the get-go. But they didnt. So several states did. Which is why I have no problem with states having laws independent of the Federal government. Edit-After all, I think protecting civil liberties is pretty much one of the most important thing that the Federal Government is supposed to do, and I consider slavery to be a pretty big infringement on those rights.

To comment on your last paragraph, it seems to me, that it usually works the opposite. That the states are usually the one that drags the Federal Government along. For example: see the ongoing Federal prohibition on marijuana. (I dont think anyone sane can say that the War on Drugs is providing "stability".) Eventually enough states will legalise/decriminalise it and drag D.C. along.


thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I mean seriously, how can anyone believe in gun control? How can it be safer to face mugger unarmed rather then armed? (In both cases the mugger has a gun, because he is a criminal and doesn't follow the law. In countriies with gun control the majority of household breakins occur when the residents are home, in American the opposite is true, and when the journalist asked a prison inmate why he didn't rob houses with people in them the response was "because that's the best way to get shot")
You do understand the following facts?

Don't engage. You may have missed the deleted post where he made it clear he only has the most casual acquaintance with facts.

This was a case where leaving the post in might have been better, just to make it clear there was no point in replying to the other 2 posts.

Ah I was wondering what got deleted, I read something like 4 words of that post and immediately had to make a will save.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:


You're right. Several states did oppose slavery before the federal government did. Other states continued slavery and tried to expand it to new territories. When it came down to it, it was the federal government that ended slavery in the US. It wasn't done state by state.
Do you think that was a bad thing? That the federal government shouldn't have done so? In fact, should have allowed it to continue to spread west, since that's closer to what the actual issue was at the start.
Or do you just think the federal government was evil for allowing it at all and can not be forgiven for not stopping it from the beginning?

What is your point here anyway?

What I think most of this shows is that the federal government is not a kind of tyrannical overwhelming force. It has tended to stabilize things until enough of the states have moved, then drag the others along. That doesn't seem like a bad approach to me.

NO! I dont think it was a bad thing. It should have stopped slavery from the get-go. But they didnt. So several states did. Which is why I have no problem with states having laws independent of the Federal government. Edit-After all, I think protecting civil liberties is pretty much one of the most important thing that the Federal Government is supposed to do, and I consider slavery to be a pretty big infringement on those rights.

To comment on your last paragraph, it seems to me, that it usually works the opposite. That the states are usually the one that drags the Federal Government along. For example: see the ongoing Federal prohibition on marijuana. (I dont think anyone sane can say that the War on Drugs is providing "stability".) Eventually enough states will legalise/decriminalise it and drag D.C. along.

What you describe is exactly what I said. (Or what I meant at least) Stability in terms of preserving and supporting the status quo of existing state law. Some states are starting to decriminalize marijuana. For awhile, the feds will oppose that, preserving the status quo. If/when enough states do so, the feds will flip to the other side and push the lagging states along. Gay marriage will go the same way. Currently the feds are still holding it back, but may be on the verge of flipping.

The government, any government, state, local or federal can't get too far ahead of it's citizens and unless it goes completely dictatorial won't stay too far behind them. The federal government couldn't have abolished slavery at the start, even if somehow a bunch of secret abolitionist got elected before there was even a real abolitionist movement. The states wouldn't have listened. The politicians would have been tossed out of office. The people didn't want it.
The question you keep looking at is why didn't the feds end slavery earlier. The question you keep avoiding is what would have happened if they hadn't intervened at all. Sure some states had ended it, but how much longer would the south have continued? How far would it have expanded west?

No one claims states shouldn't have laws independent of the federal government. Just that in some cases, federal laws should supersede. Which you seem to agree with.


thejeff wrote:

What you describe is exactly what I said. (Or what I meant at least) Stability in terms of preserving and supporting the status quo of existing state law. Some states are starting to decriminalize marijuana. For awhile, the feds will oppose that, preserving the status quo. If/when enough states do so, the feds will flip to the other side and push the lagging states along. Gay marriage will go the same way. Currently the feds are still holding it back, but may be on the verge of flipping.

The government, any government, state, local or federal can't get too far ahead of it's citizens and unless it goes completely dictatorial won't stay too far behind them. The federal government couldn't have abolished slavery at the start, even if somehow a bunch of secret abolitionist got elected before there was even a real abolitionist movement. The states wouldn't have listened. The politicians would have been tossed out of office. The people didn't want it.
The question you keep looking at is why didn't the feds end slavery earlier. The question you keep avoiding is what would have happened if they hadn't intervened at all. Sure some states had ended it, but how much longer would the south have continued? How far would it have expanded west?

Im not avoiding at all. It would have been terrible if the Federal Government hadnt ended slavery, and later, Jim Crow laws. As Ive said, civil liberties fall within the federal mandate. But you cant ignore, that the federal government allowed slavery, and later, Jim Crow, whereas the means to fight it started in the states. (technically it started with individuals, but we'll stick with state vs. federal)

thejeff wrote:
No one claims states shouldn't have laws independent of the federal government.

Oh really?!?

Samnell wrote:
One nation. One law


thejeff wrote:


You're right. Several states did oppose slavery before the federal government did. Other states continued slavery and tried to expand it to new territories. When it came down to it, it was the federal government that ended slavery in the US. It wasn't done state by state.
Do you think that was a bad thing? That the federal government shouldn't have done so? In fact, should have allowed it to continue to spread west, since that's closer to what the actual issue was at the start.
Or do you just think the federal government was evil for allowing it at all and can not be forgiven for not stopping it from the beginning?

Had the federal government done nothing, or been paralyzed as previously advocated by very high supermajority requirements to pass ordinary laws, that would not have stopped the spread of slavery but rather abetted it. Whether it was stopping the trans-Atlantic slave trade, banning slavery in half the Louisiana Purchase, or barring it from the Northwest Territory most federal legislation prior to the 1850s was to restrict slavery, which otherwise could have spread anywhere. With the exception of the Fugitive Slave Acts, Washington only abetted slavery insofar as not abolishing it (because of states' rights, goshdarnit!) where it already existed. It existed in Missouri and Arkansas during the territorial stage before the Compromise that made both slave. It existed in Texas before annexation. Not until the Compromise of 1850 did Washington ever open an area to slavery where none existed previously, and that's only half an example because a large section of the territory in question came out of Texas's claims and the Compromise left the question of slavery unsettled, to be decided by the territorial governments at a later date.

And of course if not for the power of the states in the Senate, all those compromises that restricted slavery somewhere while doing nothing about it elsewhere could have been avoided. The likely result instead would have been straight prohibitions on slavery everywhere West of the Mississippi and north of Louisiana and Texas, given the Northern and increasingly antislavery majority in the House. The Wilmot Proviso, barring slavery from the Mexican Cession, went through the House without much difficulty but died in the Senate. Repeatedly. (Full disclosure: the link is to my blog.)

The antebellum federal position on slavery leaves a lot to be desired, but it was very far from an enthusiastic proslavery force. It was often callously indifferent (just the policy preferred: let the state sort it out) but in order to get territory once free in fact (Texas was de jure free, due to Mexican abolition, but the Texans fought a war to preserve their slavery.) explicitly opened to slavery by a federal act (not just left to the locals to decide, as the Compromise of 1850 and later the Kansas-Nebraska Act would do) you have to go to the Dred Scott case.

Dred Scott did a lot to wake the nation up, but to anybody paying closer attention it ought to have been obvious as early as 1820 (when Jefferson noticed) that the nation could not endure legally half slave and half free. It would have to become all one or all the other.


thejeff wrote:
The federal government couldn't have abolished slavery at the start, even if somehow a bunch of secret abolitionist got elected before there was even a real abolitionist movement.

They talked about it at the convention. The South refused. It was them with slavery or not at all. South Carolina, always at the pro-slavery extreme, refused to ratify any constitution that immediately banned the international slave trade.

Except for New Jersey, though, every Northern state abolished slavery by 1800, though most of them used graduated emancipation schemes that meant they still had small numbers of slaves decades later. (NY freed its last slaves in the 1820s, PA in the 1840s, and NJ still had eighteen slaves listed on the 1860 census.)


President Madison - you know, the third President - was amongst several founding fathers attempting to figure out a way to repatriate slaves without bankrupting the treasury to do so IIRC.

Lantern Lodge

thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I mean seriously, how can anyone believe in gun control? How can it be safer to face mugger unarmed rather then armed? (In both cases the mugger has a gun, because he is a criminal and doesn't follow the law. In countriies with gun control the majority of household breakins occur when the residents are home, in American the opposite is true, and when the journalist asked a prison inmate why he didn't rob houses with people in them the response was "because that's the best way to get shot")
You do understand the following facts?

Don't engage. You may have missed the deleted post where he made it clear he only has the most casual acquaintance with facts. (There was only one actual fact posted and it came from someone who lived through it, which gives me at least some respect for it)

This was a case where leaving the post in might have been better, just to make it clear there was no point in replying to the other 2 posts.

I resent that, I may not be very good at explaining myself (and worse at remembering specific names) but I do recall saying that it was a rumor, which by it's nature means the facts are obscured. (There was only one "fact" in there and it came from someone who lived through it, so I give it more weight then salt)

As for LaserX's facts, I certainly agree that some individuals deserve to have their rights to bear weapons be clipped (like they do with some criminals), but it should be because the individual has shown themselves unable to be responsible rather then be done wholesale across the entire populace.

People may be born equal, but they don't stay that way. Some individuals do things to deserve special treatment, but they should prove they need to be treated special rather then limiting everyone because of a few individuals.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Turin, President Madison wasnt the third President. Just wanted to correct that. He was the fourth.

Interesting fact: His vice President was George Clinton, making it possibly the most funkadelic adminstation in US history.


TheWhiteknife wrote:

Turin, President Madison wasnt the third President. Just wanted to correct that. He was the fourth.

Interesting fact: His vice President was George Clinton, making it possibly the most funkadelic adminstation in US history.

I was going on memory from 25 years ago, thanks for the clarification!

Now all we need is funky music ....

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TheWhiteknife wrote:

possibly. I agree that Libertariansm would require a highly motivated and informed populace. Otherwise it would fail. But I think it would be worth it to try.

No it won't... because it's a nonstarter. Libertarians seek to remove government from most governing operations. What will fill such a vacuum? It would be the people with power who have no public accountancy, the Bloombergs, the Trumps, the megacorporations, all the folks that legally operate behind closed doors. If you corner a libertarian on this point, they won't give you a substantive rebuttal to it or in many cases even reply.


“The United States now stands ready for direct military intervention in the Syrian conflict when the weather permits,”


LazarX wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

possibly. I agree that Libertariansm would require a highly motivated and informed populace. Otherwise it would fail. But I think it would be worth it to try.

No it won't... because it's a nonstarter. Libertarians seek to remove government from most governing operations. What will fill such a vacuum? It would be the people with power who have no public accountancy, the Bloombergs, the Trumps, the megacorporations, all the folks that legally operate behind closed doors. If you corner a libertarian on this point, they won't give you a substantive rebuttal to it or in many cases even reply.

Not really. I dont know of many libertarians that want to get government completely out. The anarcho-capitalists, maybe, but theyre fringe. I dunno of too many that dont agree that one of the main jobs of government is to enforce civil liberties and to enforce contracts. Basically to make sure that Trump doesnt have your land grabbed by the local government via eminent domain and then sold to him on the cheap for instance. This actually happened. In a very non-libertarian setting.

Which is why it would require a highly informed and active populace. If the government, which would still exist, tells you that Trump is screwing you, the first thing you do, is stop giving him your money. You stop watching the Apprentice. You stop gambling in his casinos. You stop staying at his hotels and you shun those that do. Between that and whatever appropriate actions the government takes (which they would with the informed and active populace and all), there wouldnt be too many that follow in his wake. Which is far cry from what we have today, where Trump and those like him use the government AGAINST you for their own gain. Legally, by default. And behind closed doors.

Regarding what would fill the vacuum: If only there were some document that could answer this for us! If onlyyyyyyy!!!

Tenth Amendment wrote:
States and Individuals


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samnell wrote:
thejeff wrote:


You're right. Several states did oppose slavery before the federal government did. Other states continued slavery and tried to expand it to new territories. When it came down to it, it was the federal government that ended slavery in the US. It wasn't done state by state.
Do you think that was a bad thing? That the federal government shouldn't have done so? In fact, should have allowed it to continue to spread west, since that's closer to what the actual issue was at the start.
Or do you just think the federal government was evil for allowing it at all and can not be forgiven for not stopping it from the beginning?

Had the federal government done nothing, or been paralyzed as previously advocated by very high supermajority requirements to pass ordinary laws, that would not have stopped the spread of slavery but rather abetted it. Whether it was stopping the trans-Atlantic slave trade, banning slavery in half the Louisiana Purchase, or barring it from the Northwest Territory most federal legislation prior to the 1850s was to restrict slavery, which otherwise could have spread anywhere. With the exception of the Fugitive Slave Acts, Washington only abetted slavery insofar as not abolishing it (because of states' rights, goshdarnit!) where it already existed. It existed in Missouri and Arkansas during the territorial stage before the Compromise that made both slave. It existed in Texas before annexation. Not until the Compromise of 1850 did Washington ever open an area to slavery where none existed previously, and that's only half an example because a large section of the territory in question came out of Texas's claims and the Compromise left the question of slavery unsettled, to be decided by the territorial governments at a later date.

And of course if not for the power of the states in the Senate, all those compromises that restricted slavery somewhere while doing nothing about it elsewhere could have been avoided. The likely result instead would have been straight...

I thank you for arguing my position I guess.Why do you think this is good ^? Do you think it would have been better if the Federal government had forced slavery upon the non-slave states? That when Pennyslvania said "no more" to slavery, that DC should have stepped in and said no dice, you have to permit it? Because that is what you arguing!!! Should the DEA be raiding Colorado constantly now? Because that is what you are arguing!!! Those textbooks from Texas, why do you think everyone should pay for them and possibly be forced to use them? Because that is what you are arguing for!!

Change starts first with the individual, then moves to the state, then to the federal level. Why do you think this is bad?


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
1, I was stating a near-fact.

A near-fact? Which one? Is "almost factually correct" how we evaluate important decisions, now?

Quote:
2, 300 million citizens not a problem as this is a representative democracy not a true democracy.

Oh, okay, so just all of our representatives.

Quote:
3, The government should stick to it's mandate because that is the purpose of the government, you don't use a hammer to sew your clothes together. The government has no purpose beyond it's mandate, therefore it should not meddle in things outside it's responsibilty, which generally results in conflict which detracts from the governments time and resources for it's actual responsibilities.

I believe that the government's mandate has never been as narrow as you believe it to be. I also believe that, as with all aspects of government, the scope of its power and purview are malleable and purposefully designed in such a way that they might change with the evolving needs of the country and realities of the world.

Quote:
4, 2/3rds, because as a representative democracy 50%+1 is rather inaccurate

It is a majority. Why does it need to be more accurate? More importantly, why is it suddenly accurate enough once you get to 67%? What if someone said that 67% isn't accurate enough, and that you need 75% to have true democracy. Or 80%? Or 90%? Or 99%? Or, heck, why not avoid action entirely unless absolutely everyone agrees on it?

The answer, of course, is that if that were the case nothing would get done, because there is very, very little that you could get everyone (or even a supermajority) to agree upon in terms of appropriate responses to the challenges we face as an entire nation.

So you scale it back, until your decision represents enough of the will of the people without making it impossible to enact policy.

Quote:
All those numbers you throw around are different, different by way of how difficult they are to achieve, 60% will allow a lot more bills to pass then 90%, 2/3rds ensures a more stable majority without making it too difficult to pass laws.

We are seeing the downside to requiring supermajority approval right now, as really critical legislation is being stalled by an increasingly insane, obstructionist Republican minority in the Senate (To give you an idea of how insane the Senate Republicans are, Mitch McConnell today filibustered his own proposal; which is to say, he said, "Hey, let's move to consider this, I bet you Democrats don't have the balls!" and Harry Reid said, "Fine, let's have an up or down vote on it," and McConnell said, "Oh crap, time to filibuster!" I don't know of any other time this has happened, ever). The Democratic party is looking to make some changes to how filibustering in the Senate is handled starting with the upcoming term.

67% might make sense in a responsible political climate where you have the interests of the country at heart, rather than having no goal beyond trying to stamp out the sitting President's legacy. Unfortunately, we do not have a responsible opposition party. What we have instead is C-SPAN's first regular comedy show.

Quote:

5, these aspects are true of the general population that the government officials represent and are not going to dissappear, therefore they need to be accounted for.

Not offering an opinion until it is well formed is good policy for the government officials but it won't be used by the general population.

I would argue that the way the system is currently set up encourages swings in opinion because they are perceived as having little effect on the outcome. By way of example, every election we have 10% or so of the population that, for whatever insane reason, can't decide which candidate best represents them until just days before the election, despite months of news coverage, campaigning, media ad buys, debates, and opportunities for research. Instead, the opinions of those 10% swing wildly based on only the most recent events; these people support the incumbent one week, and then when the challenger gets a wisecrack in on the air, they switch sides. That's awful citizenship. It should be discouraged at every opportunity.

Quote:
6, Better to be cynical then overly trusting of something that can kill you.

There is healthy skepticism, and then there is pointless (and, unfortunately, fashionable) cynicism. They are two different beasts.

Quote:
You don't ever point a gun at someone, no matter how sure you are that it's unloaded, people have indeed shot themselves with a weapon they thought was unloaded, I would rather not be one.

This is the best part of your post. You literally just railed against gun control. You don't point a gun at anything unless you intend to use it (although, really, if you've worked with firearms you know that's not strictly true, at least in the literal use of the word "use"). But what you're advocating is like never even touching a weapon, because you're worried about the consequences.

Quote:
Also, just because someone looks to themselves first doesn't mean they will ignore evryone else, it is a scale and thus many not-so-decent government officials will still do things good for the country, they will just also leave room to help themselves. Taxes is a good example, some officiala will reduce taxes, but they also will leave loopholes to reduce the taxes they themselves pay.

Reducing taxes is rarely (rarely) a good thing.

Quote:
7, Far fewer good seeking people make it

This is far more true of the Republican party than the Democratic party. The latter isn't made up of nothing but great people, but it's a shining beacon of humanity and goodwill compared to the Republicans. Support Democratic candidates.

Quote:
and those that do are usually at a disadvantage, the corrupt will use methods and tactics that bend or even break the rules to achieve what they want while a decent person hesitates to use such and those that don't hesitate often find themselves eventually as corrupt as their fellows.

That's a problem, certainly. Identify where the corruption lies, then, and rally against it. Start with the worst offenders. Is that something you're comfortable with?

Quote:
(In both cases the mugger has a gun, because he is a criminal and doesn't follow the law. In countriies with gun control the majority of household breakins occur when the residents are home,

That's false, and you should know better, because the very websites that love to parade around the "Because that's the best way to get shot," line you love so much are the same that cite a hot-burglary rate of under 50% for countries with strict gun control.

Quote:
in American the opposite is true,

In the United States the figure is lower, but in both cases the majority of burglaries take place when the building is unoccupied.

Quote:

It's easy to come up with an arguement for anything, but a little thinking will reveal the truth, peripheral persuasion relies on making up your mind before you fully analyze it, because most people automatically think about why they are correct rather then why they might be wrong.

For example if I were to ask you why Micheal Jordon is the best or not, the first thing to come to your mind will be a fact that supports your position.

Only if you have a mental stake in the answer. For instance, I never followed basketball when Jordan was playing. It's really easy for me to say that I can't provide a real answer to that argument, because that's the truth.

When you do have a mental stake in the outcome of the argument, then of course the first thing to come to mind will be a nugget of support for your knee-jerk opinion. But it's really not that hard to train yourself out of that.


ScottBetts wrote:
67% might make sense in a responsible political climate where you have the interests of the country at heart, rather than having no goal beyond trying to stamp out the sitting President's legacy. Unfortunately, we do not have a responsible opposition party. What we have instead is C-SPAN's first regular comedy show.

I agree 110%


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Belated George Clinton link

Lantern Lodge

1,
I was stating something that is generally accepted as fact, but in no way could you actually prove it.

You make decisions off the best info you have available, you rarely have perfect information.

2,
A few hundred is quite possible, particularly when not all of them will want to make statements. In case you didn't know tradeing votes is part of the game, if I really don't have a strong opinion on something, I will give my vote to another who will vote in my favor on an issue I really want that they don't have an opinion on. Those individuals who have traded their votes as such will not likely have anything to say on the matter, which makes this even more feasible.

3,
Never specified what the mandate entails, therefore you cannot make an accurate statement of how narrow I believe that mandate to be.

Mostly I don't believe the government should act as our parent or take care of us, but rather should provide a structure and environment for us to take resposibility for ourselves and to provide conflict resolution.

4,
Sounds to me like you have no idea of what that number should be.

People change their minds, you will never have a whole populace be the way you want or even trained to think like you want (such shouldn't be allowed anyway)
Therefore the 2/3rds provides a bufferso that what the majority vote for today is less likely to be what the majority vote against tommorrow. There is no real way to pick an absolute number that is optimal for this, you wil get different results from whatever number you use and 2/3rds is a good comprimise between those various possible results. That is why I pick 2/3rds, so unless you have a reason to believe in some other specific number that addresses the above concerns, let's drop this point.

4 B,
You don't seem to realize that politics is strategy heavy, it not clear cut " here's an idea, yay or nay", you make moves then make counter-moves and try to force an opponants hand into doing what you want. So don't take it all at face value, it's part of how politics is played. Sometimes you need to step back to move forward, sometimes a failed strategy results in your own embarressment.

The politician's game makes tthis look like a comedy show but that doesn't mean it is anything other then a successful strategy to weaken an opponants position. Besides, some of them believe the president's legacy is a very bad thing, so why shouldn't they try to stop it? Wouldn't you agree with trying to stop something you thought was bad?

You have an opinion, realize that it's an opinion and that not everyone is going to agree that your utopia, is a utopia. I.E. One persons heaven, is another person's hell. This is a fact, deal with it, for it will never change.

5,
Fiirst, the politicians want it to be easy to sway the public in their direction. Second that portion of the population you refer to will always exist no matter what to do, the percentage might change it won't go away, so learn to work around it or with it.

6,
Everyone has different ideas of where Healthy skepitsicm, becomes pointless cynisicm. It is an opinion so quit worrying about being disagreed with here.

6 B,
You are taking my stance way too far, I use guns all the time, real ones, airsoft, and paintball guns. As a matter of safety, I point unless I intend to shoot, but that doesn't mean I shy away either.

Be aware of the dangers and be prepared for the worst, but don't let fear imprison you either.

6 C,
First, that's debatable, second it's beside the point. I made an example, replace taxes with whatever issue you believe is good and my point will still stand.

7,
I don't think so, I think both parties are equal in this, but each party has vastly different ideas about what is better for the people. Some believe in a big strong government that borders on socialism, others believe in a small government that stays out of anything that doesn't effect the whole country. Which option is better will not likely ever be known, and depends on what you want out of life anyway.

7 B,
You can't get rid of corruption, so learn to manage it instead. Besides corruption leads to conflict which leads to change, which leads to growth. Just have to keep it all in balance.

7 C & D,
My data is old, but at the time the american break-ins while occupied were the minority (around 37%) it may have changed recently, but then again a lot of factors have arisan to make people desperate, which leads to stupid crimes with slim hopes. And I don't surf websites very often, generally go for hardcopy, websites are too easy to fix, and too hard to verify.

7 E,
True, but we are talking politics and in general, if your listening to a politic debate it's because you have a mental stake in the matter. Besides part of persuasion is give you the mental stake the speaker desires. That is persuasion, if your speaking to let someone decide for themselves, then that would be an informative speech, not persuasion.

If you want people to side with you, are going to let them decide for themselves, or will you try to convince them you are the side they want?

Most people don't know or understand this process, and no-one tries to train them to be resistant to persuasive speechs (which would be bad for bussinessmen and politicians) so good luck with your perfect universe.

Always good to reach for the ideal, but you have to take the practical reality into account.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Because that is what you are arguing!!! Those textbooks from Texas, why do you think everyone should pay for them and possibly be forced to use them? Because that is what you are arguing for!!

No. He is saying that they shouldn't dictate national level textbook information, and that it should be dictated at a federal level. But Texas does. And they do it because states define what goes in textbooks. Companies have no reason to sell textbooks that wont sell in Texas, so they only cater to those standards. Thus, because there is no federal oversite on textbook information for education, a single state gets to decide what goes into most of the countries textbooks. At least they decided creationism didn't belong in science books recently.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

whiteknife,
Why are you so comfortabel giving states absoltue authority when, as you've admitted, half the states had to be dragged kicking and screaming into even basic equality by the federal governemt nbecause the states weren't going to do it themselves? The Federal government will always lag behind the most progressive states. Of course it bloody well will. Otherwise, you'd be complaining, rightly, about the Federal governemnt imposing things on the majority of the populace. So you can't have it both ways. Yes, the Federal government only acts once some states take the plunge. Then it drags recalcitrant states kciking and screaming out of their bigoted little pits and into the light with the best states. What would you have the Federal government do that's different? Impose the standards of the best (determined by whom?) states on the the other 49? Or wait until every last state decided to not enact stupid bigotries into law? Because neither of those seems like good options to me and I an't see how they'd seem reasonable to a libertarian who hasd a functioning conscince. As I assume you do, I'm not sure what your arguing beyond "Federal bad, States good" which doesn't follow.


Blah blah blah, state's rights, federal powers, blah.

Meanwhile, Obama Releases Mutant Mosquitos Across Florida!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Blah blah blah, state's rights, federal powers, blah.

Meanwhile, Obama Releases Mutant Mosquitos Across Florida!

Good for him. Its been successful in the other countries that have used the technique.


First the mutant mosquitos, then the FEMA camps!


President Obama wrote:
First the mutant mosquitos, then the FEMA camps!

One tyrant to another: it seems more efficient if the FEMA camps are used to feed the mutant mosquitos. Camps first, then the super skeeters.


Paul Watson wrote:

whiteknife,

Why are you so comfortabel giving states absoltue authority when, as you've admitted, half the states had to be dragged kicking and screaming into even basic equality by the federal governemt nbecause the states weren't going to do it themselves? The Federal government will always lag behind the most progressive states. Of course it bloody well will. Otherwise, you'd be complaining, rightly, about the Federal governemnt imposing things on the majority of the populace. So you can't have it both ways. Yes, the Federal government only acts once some states take the plunge. Then it drags recalcitrant states kciking and screaming out of their bigoted little pits and into the light with the best states. What would you have the Federal government do that's different? Impose the standards of the best (determined by whom?) states on the the other 49? Or wait until every last state decided to not enact stupid bigotries into law? Because neither of those seems like good options to me and I an't see how they'd seem reasonable to a libertarian who hasd a functioning conscince. As I assume you do, I'm not sure what your arguing beyond "Federal bad, States good" which doesn't follow.

First, I would like to point out that I am VERY uncomfortable with giving states absolute authority. I never said that they should have. Why do you think that I said otherwise? A tyranny at the state level is still a tyranny. Thats why I believe, again, that the Federal government has (or, more correctly, should have) a major major role in protecting civil liberties.

You see the biggest problem is that when you consolidate power that far up the chain and have a "one nation, one law" system for a country as large as ours, you give people (who might have beliefs and social mores that are the complete opposite of yours) more power over you! You might have the best intentions of giving the Federal government absolute authority over the states, but then what do you do when your outvoted? I dont think New Yorkers want Texas, Kansas, and the Carolinas telling them what to do any more than the opposite! These are some serious strawmen being thrown out: Bigoted laws SHOULD be struck down automatically by DC. Creationist textbooks SHOULD NOT be purchased with public money or taught in public schools. But, if you begin ignoring the Constitution to pass what you believe to be good laws, dont be surprised when your opposition does the same back to you.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:

whiteknife,

Why are you so comfortabel giving states absoltue authority when, as you've admitted, half the states had to be dragged kicking and screaming into even basic equality by the federal governemt nbecause the states weren't going to do it themselves? The Federal government will always lag behind the most progressive states. Of course it bloody well will. Otherwise, you'd be complaining, rightly, about the Federal governemnt imposing things on the majority of the populace. So you can't have it both ways. Yes, the Federal government only acts once some states take the plunge. Then it drags recalcitrant states kciking and screaming out of their bigoted little pits and into the light with the best states. What would you have the Federal government do that's different? Impose the standards of the best (determined by whom?) states on the the other 49? Or wait until every last state decided to not enact stupid bigotries into law? Because neither of those seems like good options to me and I an't see how they'd seem reasonable to a libertarian who hasd a functioning conscince. As I assume you do, I'm not sure what your arguing beyond "Federal bad, States good" which doesn't follow.

First, I would like to point out that I am VERY uncomfortable with giving states absolute authority. I never said that they should have. Why do you think that I said otherwise? A tyranny at the state level is still a tyranny. Thats why I believe, again, that the Federal government has (or, more correctly, should have) a major major role in protecting civil liberties.

You see the biggest problem is that when you consolidate power that far up the chain and have a "one nation, one law" system for a country as large as ours, you give people (who might have beliefs and social mores that are the complete opposite of yours) more power over you! You might have the best intentions of giving the Federal government absolute authority over the states, but then what do you do when your outvoted? I dont think New Yorkers want Texas, Kansas, and the Carolinas telling them what to do any more than the opposite! These are some serious strawmen being thrown out: Bigoted laws SHOULD be struck down automatically by DC. Creationist textbooks SHOULD NOT be purchased with public money or taught in public schools. But, if you begin ignoring the Constitution to pass what you believe to be good laws, dont be surprised when your opposition does the same back to you.

So you don't want states to be absolute. You want the Federal Government to be able to override them when they're doing wrong.

But you also don't want the Federal Government to have power over the states because it might force them to do something wrong.

I'm confused. What do you want? How would you structure the state/federal relationship if you could? Your claims seem contradictory.

The Exchange

The federal should overrule only when needed, not take over in place of the states.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

How do we determine when it is needed?

Lantern Lodge

You cannot make everyone happy, thus a need to comprimise and to allow different groups to grow in different directions.

I think federal should really only apply to things that are nearly unanamously agreed upon or that effect everyone regardless of opinion.

Then the states can cater to local opinions.

while allowing people to go live in a state the most closely resembles what they want as far as government goes. Gives a bit of unity on the large scale while allowing for the differences of opinion and opposing views.


Things afoot in Comrade Sam's home state


Andrew R wrote:
The federal should overrule only when needed, not take over in place of the states.

So...only so long as they agree with you? This is too ambiguous a comment, I'm going to need more info here.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
As for LaserX's facts, I certainly agree that some individuals deserve to have their rights to bear weapons be clipped (like they do with some criminals), but it should be because the individual has shown themselves unable to be responsible rather then be done wholesale across the entire populace.

And you would be hard pressed to find any significant number of gun control advocates pushing for the complete ban of private ownership. I simply submit one very good arguement for why this can't be left to the states: The vast majority of illegal gun ownership stems from guns being transported from states that allow purchase with virtually no checks (the infamous gun shows). Cutting this loophole would eliminate a major source of illegal firearms.

There are quite a few state laws which make absolutely no sense unless the intent was to rhubarb a neighboring state.

Example: In New Jersey ownership of fireworks by nonlicensed individuals is illegal. In Pennsylvania just across the Deleware you will find hordes of shops whose only purpose is to sell to New Jersyans coming across the border. Pennsyslvanians themselves are not allowed to shop in those stores.

The major thing that needs to be taken out of State Hands is the Electoral Process. As it is now voting conditions in the United States range from modern to conditions that would embarrass a banana republic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm all for bringing back melee weapons into common parlance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pfft.

God made man and woman and Col. Colt made them equal, you misogynist, door-opening dog!


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Pfft.

God made man and woman and Col. Colt made them equal, you misogynist, door-opening dog!

Promise me that if you do take over the world with your red army, you will say that to me while throwing me up against the wall.


Sorry, it should have been "door-holding" dog.

But, I've already promised somewhere else that we will never throw you up against the wall, Comrade Freehold.


Well, that's good to hear.


Citizen Meatrace, on the other hand...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Pfft.

God made man and woman and Col. Colt made them equal, you misogynist, door-opening dog!

Actually it was more Monseiur Guillotine that made everyone equal.

Vive Le Galtine!


LazarX wrote:
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

Pfft.

God made man and woman and Col. Colt made them equal, you misogynist, door-opening dog!

Actually it was more Monseiur Guillotine that made everyone equal.

Vive Le Galtine!

Just don't sign any death warrants while you're taking a bath, and you'll be fine.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Things afoot in Comrade Sam's home state

Dirty bastards can't even pretend they're acting in good faith. They plotted the thing in secret and then rushed it through the legislature, hoping to escape notice.

I knew Snyder was a snake when he joined the GOP, but he proved it back when he campaigned on being a different kind of Republican. Yeah, right.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:


I think federal should really only apply to things that ... effect everyone regardless of opinion.

Then the states can cater to local opinions.

So, things like healthcare. I mean, everyone needs healthcare at some point in their life.

Lantern Lodge

Depends on what you consider healthcare, my only real concern with healthcare is that my experience with military healthcare makes me fear what healthcare would be like if the model is used in the civilian world. Military healthcare is sufficient but pathetic compared to civilian healthcare, and too much of our population would go for the free stuff rather then support the costly healthcare that would keep the standards up. So theoretically yes, but I have concerns about doing so.

Besides it is starting to creep slowly towards socialism, which is wonderfull in theory and if done right certain elements could even work, but I have little faith in it ever being done right, and too many examples of real world socialism exist to make me support it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In 1909, Norway instituted mandatory health insurance for large segments of its workforce. In 1912, they adopted a single payer system, though due to two world wars and the financial stresses of the time period, it was fairly meager until after 1945. They haven't descended into complete anarchy.

They did produce these guys though. One of my favorite live shows of all time as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Besides it is starting to creep slowly towards socialism, which is wonderfull in theory and if done right certain elements could even work, but I have little faith in it ever being done right, and too many examples of real world socialism exist to make me support it.

Well let's see, there's Soviet Russia and there's China. Those are examples of communism (not socialism) gone wrong, mostly. China is on track to become the world's largest economy, and they treat their land and labor like expendables so, really, they're Ayn Rand's paradise.

Then there's basically every European state to some degree. Germany, France, England, Norway, Sweden, etc. Social Democracy.

What examples are you talking about?

When you say military healthcare is crap compared to civilian healthcare. I don't know enough to agree, but I think we can agree that it's better than NO healthcare, which is what about 17% of us have right now. Higher amounts by demographic, as shown in this excellent article.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Besides it is starting to creep slowly towards socialism, which is wonderfull in theory and if done right certain elements could even work, but I have little faith in it ever being done right, and too many examples of real world socialism exist to make me support it.

As an 11 year veteran of our socialist military, and having been on military healthcare since birth, I highly support it.

The Exchange

Freehold DM wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
The federal should overrule only when needed, not take over in place of the states.
So...only so long as they agree with you? This is too ambiguous a comment, I'm going to need more info here.

Freedom and liberty are ambiguous but that is what we are based on. It would have to be case by case but only so far as the constitution allows, without inventing lines that are not there. Amend it if the people support it but do not "interpret" things that were never there (like abuses in the name of the "commerce clause")


The only concern I'd have with military care is when an E-5 or lower is in charge of providing you care, beyond trying to make sure you survive until an actual doctor can see to you. I had one make a mess of an ingrown toenail once. Screening for more severe illness was also pretty hit or miss by the more inexperienced, it took three visits to figure out I had pneumonia another time.

The actual doctors and nurses were fine though. Also, the VA hospital in my area has been very good to me.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The big problem with the military is we move people out of the job after they get the experience at it. So we're constantly moving inexperienced people into the positions. But that's what we get with 'up or out' policies.


Obama Harshes My Buzz

1,451 to 1,500 of 1,595 << first < prev | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Living under Obama's presidency All Messageboards