Political Forums
Forum Notice

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 24th, 2012, 03:54 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,991
Many with a firm grasp on American history clearly detect a showdown in the making between federal beaurocrats in Washington and Governors of the States. The undeniable trend of an every growing, heavy-handed, rule by fiat government has become the fuse on the powder keg ready to explode in the coming years. And historians note a great similarity of the present to the causes leading to our most gloomy historical period, the Civil War.



In the 1800’s freedom and State’s Rights were the primary issues of the day and it would be hard to argue they are not front and center today. The slavery issue has been replaced by the full frontal assault on the personal freedoms of every American, but the age old battle of State’s Rights remains largely unchanged. The biggest difference from the 1800’s, of course, is the degree of entanglement between the States and the federal government. No one in the 1800’s would have predicted the federal government would have their fingers in the pies of everything from education to food. And now State governors are caught in the vice between administering their States independently and complying with an ever increasing mountain of mandates.



My advice to the governors. Just say “No”.



When the President acts by fiat and creates immigration policy in the Oval Office, just say no. When the EPA does an end run around Congress and invents their own carbon tax, just say no. When the Justice Department sues your State for attempting to clean up your voter registration records, just say no.



There is a clear delineation of power in our Republic and the past century has seen that structure turned on its head. Congress is either unwilling or unable to stop this growing trend so now only Governors of the States are left to halt the encroachment of power. In the past Governors have been hesitant to push back against federal seizure of power due to the repercussion surely to follow. Withdrawal of funding, costly legal battles and political war wounds made the price too costly to pay. But budget busting mandates out of Washington have placed State leaders in a no win situation and future obligations make the situation unsustainable.



The battles must be fought now before hostilities increase beyond the point of no return. Each Governor and each State will pay a heavy price for defying dictates from above. But the price to be paid now will be a bargain compared to that in the future if the can is once again kicked down the road. Historians understand the bargain before us now and even a few political leaders understand it as well. The American people would be well served by dusting off their history books and applying those lessons from the past to allow us make sense of the chaos of today.
Podium Pentothal is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 24th, 2012, 01:52 PM   #2
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,368
And who wrote that?
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 24th, 2012, 03:55 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Bookworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,298
I just Googled some of the phrases, and they didn't show up on Google, except for this thread, that is. It doesn't look like it was copied from someplace else on the web. Don't you think Podium Pentothol has the writing skills to have personally written something this insightful?
Bookworm is offline  
Old June 24th, 2012, 05:50 PM   #4
Bye, Ya better behave.
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,841
Pentothal has great personality writing but when it comes down to his main point in his opening posts about states rights, he's simply wrong. Wrong because it has already been debated and lost decades ago. However, here's the theology behind his ideology and why I disagree with it. The world view being espoused by Pentothal, libertarians like Ron Paul, the tenthers and all the people who are saying lets go back to the fundamentals of the constitution, is that they basically want to go back to the pre-Civil War era. An era when we had a very weak federal government and very strong states. States that were so strong that they felt that they could seceded from the union at that time and Abraham Lincoln said Mmmmmmm, no. And of course we later had a Civil War about that issue (slavery).



Now today we have a strong government and relatively weak states. The argument was made in the 1960s after Brown vs Board of Education in 1954 ruled that Plessy vs Ferguson (the 1888 USSC case that establish separate but equal) was wrong and the USSC reversed itself and said, no more racial distinctions. The USSC was saying that this is the province of the federal government and that the federal government at the federal level can't discriminate. So Washington D.C. which is administered by congress you couldn't discriminate for example against minorities at a food restaurant after 1954. However, at the state level the federal government didn't have the power to reach into a state and say 'you must stop the local store from discriminating against other people'.



In the Kennedy-Nixon debates in October of 1960, Nixon and Kennedy are talking about this very issue. Kennedy said 'no this is an appropriate place for the involvement of the federal government' and Nixon said 'no we should go to the chain store owners and ask them behave' but shouldn't have the power to force them.



Transcript:



"I have talked to Negro mothers. I've heard them explain - try to explain - how they tell their children how they can go into a store and buy a loaf of bread but then can't go into that store and sit at the counter and get a Coca Cola. This is wrong, and we have to do something about it. So, under the circumstances, what do we do? Well what we do is what the Attorney-General of the United States did under the direction of the President: call in the owners of chain stores and get them to take action."



Richard Nixon is saying to call in the owners of the chain stores and ask them to behave nicely. Here is John Kennedy's respobds to Richard Nixon in 1960.



"Well, Mr. Nixon hasn't discussed the two basic questions: what is going to be done and what will be his policy on implementing the Supreme Court decision of 1954? Giving aid to schools technically that are trying to carry out the decision is not the great question. Secondly, what's he going to do to provide fair employment? He's been the head of the Committee on Government Contracts that's carried out two cases, both in the District of Columbia. He has not indicated his support of an attempt to provide fair employment practices around the country, so that everyone can get a job regardless of their race or color. Nor has he indicated that he will support Title Three, which would give the Attorney General additional powers to protect Constitutional rights. These are the great questions: equality of education in school. About two percent of our population of white people are - is illiterate, ten per cent of our colored population. Sixty to seventy percent of our colored children do not finish high school. These are the questions in these areas that the North and South, East and West are entitled to know. What will be the leadership of the president in these areas to provide equality of opportunity for employment? Equality of opportunity in the field of housing, which could be done on all federal supported housing by a stroke of the president's pen. What will be done to provide equality of education in all sections of the United States? Those are the questions to which the president must establish a moral tone and moral leadership. And I can assure you that if I'm elected president we will do so."http://www.presidenc...1#axzz1ylM7wqjo





And here's the actual debate. 10 minutes and 32 seconds into the debate in the video



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM_tJ...layer_embedded



So what happened after the Civil Rights Act was passed in the mid 1960s is that the lunch counters for example in Alabama is arguably a state incorporated business with local people and the federal government doesn't have the right to enforce civil rights there, but in the constitution it explicitly says that the federal government has the right to regulate Commerce between and among the various states. It's known as the Commerce Clause.



Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress



"to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes."



So what Bobby Kennedy began and Lyndon Johnson finish was to say that restaurants for example in Alabama that is discriminating against people based on race, those restaurants making the argument that the federal government can't go in and force to integrate, but that restaurant is serving mustard, ketchup, pickles, rice, cups, tables, and etc all made from different state. So the food that that restaurant is serving, is the product of interstate commerce and therefore they are INVOLVED in interstate commerce, and therefore the federal government has the power to say that that restaurant can't discriminate against people because you are engaged in interstate commerce.



So this argument has been debated and lost by people who advocate for states rights because our federal government has concluded in the 1960s (and taken to the Supreme Court) that if those business are engaged in interstate commerce, then they must inform with federal law.
Fayt is offline  
Old June 24th, 2012, 05:56 PM   #5
Bye, Ya better behave.
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,841
See, personality writing is fun.....but tiring. Believe it or not I spent just about 2 hours writing that finding quotes, dates, and video.
Fayt is offline  
Old June 24th, 2012, 07:07 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 4,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm View Post
I just Googled some of the phrases, and they didn't show up on Google, except for this thread, that is. It doesn't look like it was copied from someplace else on the web. Don't you think Podium Pentothol has the writing skills to have personally written something this insightful?


it never occured to me that podium pentothal didnt write it, it sounds like his ideology in his own words to me. and i think a lot of it is right, there is a similar situation in australia where we have state and federal governments and increasingly the federal government is getting involved in traditional state issues. however, the world has changed since the 1800s. rather than reducing federal power and giving things back to the states, it may work better to reduce states role and have more things nationally determined. in a world of instant communication and cheap and easy travel it makes sense that many things are uniform accross the country. it is a silly situation if there is a law in one state that someone can bypass simply by driving an hour or so accross the border.
hot dragon is offline  
Old June 24th, 2012, 07:21 PM   #7
Bye, Ya better behave.
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,841
State rights is code word for legalized racism. Well, at least here in the sates.
Fayt is offline  
Old June 24th, 2012, 11:59 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 4,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
State rights is code word for legalized racism. Well, at least here in the sates.


examples: in australia we have very variable regulations on car registration. i know people who live in victoria where there are strict rules about old cars, but on paper have their car registered in a different state. victorias regulations have become completely pointless. school starts at a different age in different states. one state has mandatory sentencing, no others do. it would make more sense for the overall policy to be uniform, and the role of the states should be administering such policy rather than making it.



australias constitution, and americas, were written in an era of horse and cart and steam train and sailing ships, the post office employed fast horse riders, radio didnt exist, let alone tv and the internet, and people wrote the constitutions with feather quills. today anyone with a mobile phone can put video footage onto the internet in seconds and travel is fast and cheap, internationally never mind to the next state. many people today work in jobs that didnt exist when the constitution was written. the nuts and bolts of how to govern society today is very very different to how it was centuries ago.



yes we need smaller government, but it also needs to be comparable everywhere. you might live in new york, but you have family in california, business deals in florida and are travelling to washington next week. do you really want to have to deal with different laws in each of these places?
hot dragon is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 03:48 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,991
First off, my hat’s off to Fayt to taking the time to put together a well presented case for a strong central government. It takes time and thought and I always appreciate the effort regardless of my own views.



Making the leap from greater State’s Rights to racism, however, is quite a leap indeed. I can’t imagine how that logic works but the presumption seems to be that slavery will return if we diminish the power of the central government. If not slavery maybe she meant legalized racism, not sure. I won’t go into detail here but I’d love to see a thread started on legalized racism because it’s alive and well in America and propagated by those who profit from its practice (this means you Obama, Holder, Jackson, etc).



But back to State’s Rights. The main problem with a heavy handed federal government is that one size does not fit all. For example, stating that everybody who earns over $250,000 should be tarred and feathered throws a national net over a group that is too diverse to categorize economically. Making $250K in Dime Box, Texas would put you in tall grass without a doubt, but making the same in NY or CA is a whole different ballgame. The cost of living is completely different.



The same is true of ObamaCare. Forcing everyone to pay for breast exams or other female-only procedures is unfair. The construction company owner with all male employees could find a much cheaper policy if it were allowed to be tailored to their needs. Just like all parents should be given the choice from multiple policies that govern what age their children remain covered. One set of parents may choose age 21 in their policy while another set of parent may choose age 26. And single citizens can choose a policy with no child coverage. More choices equal more fairness no matter how you slice it.



The original idea revolved around the States being 13 different “experiments”. One State might decide to emphasize education with their tax levels and spending. Another State may decide to concentrate their resources in other areas instead. As citizens of the United States we could therefore have a choice to live in the State which we determine is most suited to our own lifestyles. More choice offers more freedom to the citizens.



And the other part of that equation is that certain fundamental rights exist that are national, not regional. I think we could all agree that basic human rights should be respected and few would argue against national policies protecting those rights. But things can get awfully dicey these days when you start talking about “rights”.



Some people believe we have the “right” to a public education. We do not. Others believe that Sandra Fluke has the “right” to “free” contraceptives. She does not. So we’ve somehow moved way beyond fundamental human rights such as freedom from slavery or discrimination. And every time a new “right” is invented by Progressives the federal government becomes more powerful and State governments less so. We’re still working on the slavery and discrimination parts of things and for all our exclamations about being an “advanced society” we just don’t seem able to get the basics right yet.



Anyone care to start a thread about slavery in the U.S.? It’s a big bad problem that still exists yet receives zero media coverage. How about we work on that one before we get ourselves in a tizzy over some college student that can’t keep off her back?
Podium Pentothal is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 03:49 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
yes we need smaller government, but it also needs to be comparable everywhere. you might live in new york, but you have family in california, business deals in florida and are travelling to washington next week. do you really want to have to deal with different laws in each of these places?


Yes I do
Podium Pentothal is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 04:43 AM   #11
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,368
People making over 250,000 having to pay higher taxes, which would actually be returning to the tax rates in place under Clinton, is hardly being tarred and feathered.



The issue of women's health coverage is not reduced to one college student that can't stay off her back, but it's telling that you would frame it in that way.



And fundamental liberties and freedoms are not to be infringed upon by any popular vote left to the states. There isn't anything dicey about that at all. The states are not free to legislate discriminatory laws or go against individual liberties and freedoms without compelling interest in doing so.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 06:38 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,991
I must have done an extremely poor job of making my point. One size fits all policies are unfair.
Podium Pentothal is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 01:16 PM   #13
Bye, Ya better behave.
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt' timestamp='1340594494' post='409109

State rights is code word for legalized racism. Well, at least here in the sates.


examples: in australia we have very variable regulations on car registration. i know people who live in victoria where there are strict rules about old cars, but on paper have their car registered in a different state. victorias regulations have become completely pointless. school starts at a different age in different states. one state has mandatory sentencing, no others do. it would make more sense for the overall policy to be uniform, and the role of the states should be administering such policy rather than making it.



australias constitution, and americas, were written in an era of horse and cart and steam train and sailing ships, the post office employed fast horse riders, radio didnt exist, let alone tv and the internet, and people wrote the constitutions with feather quills. today anyone with a mobile phone can put video footage onto the internet in seconds and travel is fast and cheap, internationally never mind to the next state. many people today work in jobs that didnt exist when the constitution was written. the nuts and bolts of how to govern society today is very very different to how it was centuries ago.



yes we need smaller government, but it also needs to be comparable everywhere. you might live in new york, but you have family in california, business deals in florida and are travelling to washington next week. do you really want to have to deal with different laws in each of these places?


Yes, I agree. See when it comes to the common I agree completely. What I mean by the commons is things that every American (or Australian) need that promote the general welfare and safety. That can be banks, roads, air, water, public schools, and etc.
Fayt is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 02:28 PM   #14
Bye, Ya better behave.
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Podium Pentothal View Post
First off, my hat’s off to Fayt to taking the time to put together a well presented case for a strong central government. It takes time and thought and I always appreciate the effort regardless of my own views.



Making the leap from greater State’s Rights to racism, however, is quite a leap indeed. I can’t imagine how that logic works but the presumption seems to be that slavery will return if we diminish the power of the central government. If not slavery maybe she meant legalized racism, not sure. I won’t go into detail here but I’d love to see a thread started on legalized racism because it’s alive and well in America and propagated by those who profit from its practice (this means you Obama, Holder, Jackson, etc).



But back to State’s Rights. The main problem with a heavy handed federal government is that one size does not fit all. For example, stating that everybody who earns over $250,000 should be tarred and feathered throws a national net over a group that is too diverse to categorize economically. Making $250K in Dime Box, Texas would put you in tall grass without a doubt, but making the same in NY or CA is a whole different ballgame. The cost of living is completely different.



The same is true of ObamaCare. Forcing everyone to pay for breast exams or other female-only procedures is unfair. The construction company owner with all male employees could find a much cheaper policy if it were allowed to be tailored to their needs. Just like all parents should be given the choice from multiple policies that govern what age their children remain covered. One set of parents may choose age 21 in their policy while another set of parent may choose age 26. And single citizens can choose a policy with no child coverage. More choices equal more fairness no matter how you slice it.



The original idea revolved around the States being 13 different “experiments”. One State might decide to emphasize education with their tax levels and spending. Another State may decide to concentrate their resources in other areas instead. As citizens of the United States we could therefore have a choice to live in the State which we determine is most suited to our own lifestyles. More choice offers more freedom to the citizens.



And the other part of that equation is that certain fundamental rights exist that are national, not regional. I think we could all agree that basic human rights should be respected and few would argue against national policies protecting those rights. But things can get awfully dicey these days when you start talking about “rights”.



Some people believe we have the “right” to a public education. We do not. Others believe that Sandra Fluke has the “right” to “free” contraceptives. She does not. So we’ve somehow moved way beyond fundamental human rights such as freedom from slavery or discrimination. And every time a new “right” is invented by Progressives the federal government becomes more powerful and State governments less so. We’re still working on the slavery and discrimination parts of things and for all our exclamations about being an “advanced society” we just don’t seem able to get the basics right yet.



Anyone care to start a thread about slavery in the U.S.? It’s a big bad problem that still exists yet receives zero media coverage. How about we work on that one before we get ourselves in a tizzy over some college student that can’t keep off her back?


It's not a leap, it's actual what will happen in many of the states (particularly southern states) if we do what you suggest and flip the bull on its head and have a weaker federal government and stronger states. See with Ronald Reagan, this is when the republican party really began courting the racists. LBJ gave the racists up when he signed the Civil Rights Act but the republicans didn't really grab hold of them until the spring of 1980 after Reagan was nominated as the nominee for the republican party. That spring after Reagan left the nominating convention, he went to Philadelphia Mississippi to give the 1st speech of his campaign and it was a speech about states rights. You probably didn't know but state rights is dog whistle code for the right to have segregation and to disenfranchise minorities. Philadelphia Mississippi was the town where 3 civil rights leaders were murdered that was made into a movie called Mississippi Burning.



It was a horrible incident and for Reagan to go to that town to give the opening speech of his campaign about states rights was for no other reason then to say to those racists White people, that he's their guy.



About some of your other points, as waitingtables pointed out, taxing someone who's making over $250k a few more is hardly hurting them. Shoot, we aren't really advocating for raising their taxes anyway. Just on millionaires and billionaires. I don't think that's a state rights issue anyway, federal income taxes are taxed the same.



To simply put it, nobody is being forced to buy into Obamacare . You will be taxed more if you don't if you are making over a certain amount (I forgot the amount). However, when it comes to health care I wouldn't mind each state deciding to try something different. A matter of fact the state of Vermont establish their own single payer healthcare plan. Although I would rather see it done on a federal level, I wouldn't mind each state to decide if they want to create their own single payer healthcare or public option where you can shop for your healthcare as you suggested.



About education, it's a bad idea to fully go back to what we rejected over 220 years ago. That's like returning to your idea of a weak federal government which was already debated and lost (as I explained above). It's silly to think that we will become a more well informed country if we allow each state to decide what to do with their public school funds. State might decide to totally defund public schools. Well, that is actually happening in many republican states, I believe in Florida for example. The result is that the children's level education have greatly decreased. What the governor of that state (Rick Scott) did was lower the passing grade for the schools state tests to make up for the decrease in the level of education. It's a terrible idea.



And I would start a thread about slavery but I don't know what I will post that people don't already know about the subject. You can try lol.
Fayt is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 08:28 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 4,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Podium Pentothal View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon' timestamp='1340611199' post='409129
yes we need smaller government, but it also needs to be comparable everywhere. you might live in new york, but you have family in california, business deals in florida and are travelling to washington next week. do you really want to have to deal with different laws in each of these places?


Yes I do


then why not just abolish the union and have 52 separate countries?



the notion of the union was to make a few things universal. things like currency, democracy, defence, basic rights, things that apply everywhere. this protects the citizenry from abuse, to a degree, and it facilitates a free society. today, with modern transport, communication, a 21st century lifestyle, it is more important and more helpful for things to be universal. i am not arguing for the federal government to regulate your life down to the wire. i am arguing that a mish mash of variable rules and regulations that change simply by driving far enough is silly in the 21st century.



i am not arguing for states to be abolished either. states do vary, they have different populations, economies, climates, resources, even culture sometimes. there is a need for a state to be able to tune things their own way, but there are things that would work better if the state didnt have to bother with it because the fed did it for everyone.



if it is oppressive for the fed to set the age at which a child starts school, why is it NOT oppressive for the state government to?



if it is controlling for the fed to stop schools teaching garbage, why is it ok if the state government does?



why is it NOT oppressive for the fed to tell the states what currency they have to use? why is it ok if the fed demands state governments be elected and not inherited? dont states have independence? if mississipi wants to have a hereditary king who issues mississipi dollars, why should the fed stop it?
hot dragon is offline  
Old June 26th, 2012, 02:21 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,991
I’m way behind the curve here, too little time. I apologize. I meant to address a few points made by Fayt regarding State’s Rights, Kennedy vs Nixon, etc. because they are important and central to the issue.



First off, the Civil War. Without a doubt slavery was the central issue leading up to the War. But there were a hundred other issues percolating behind the scenes that were contributing factors as well. Turns out some of these side issues dated back to the founding of the country (like trade and taxes). So you had this cauldron of ingredients percolating in a kettle that finally boiled over. What made it all boil over was the addition of new States in the West. Would they be “free” States or “slave” States? But the issues spanned more than just slavery.



To try and put it in today’s terms is nearly impossible, but I’ll give it a shot to get us in the ballpark. Say Obama wins re-election in November and all the Southern States say, “that’s it, we’re out, we’ve had enough”. Historians might write a hundred years from now that this action was taken solely due to ObamaCare, but they’d be wrong. Having lived during this time we all know that ObamaCare is a central issue, but there were also a hundred other issues percolating in the background too. Everything from education to the EPA had become so tangled into a ball of confusion by a heavy handed federal government that the States finally said, “No Mas”.



Equating slavery and ObamaCare is a huge stretch I know, but the point is not to compare apples and apples. The point is that no single issue led to the Civil War just as no single issue will lead to the next war. And while it’s doubtful that each side will line up against each other and shoot rifles at each other there are other ways to fight a war too. You have to know that the Governors of every State stood up and took notice yesterday when the Supreme Court ruled on Arizona’s immigration enforcement laws. The repercussions of that ruling are hard to predict but without a doubt repercussions will be coming.



Now to some people, such as Fayt, advocating for State’s Rights is the equivalent of yearning for the good old days of slavery. I can’t imagine how any human brain can make that connection but logic and common sense have long gone out the window since the days of Bill Clinton. If anyone cares for a good bit of information about the subject a good place to start is here.



The transcript is here.





- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -





The Kennedy / Nixon debate referred to above is important too because it centers on discrimination. No one would argue today that it is acceptable to discriminate against people on buses, in diners or when hiring for a job, but the issue is raised all the time. You might see Jon Stewart and Bill Maher regularly state that Republicans are racists but in reality they are just throwing grenades with zero evidence to back this up. They are just preying on simple minds pre-programmed to make that giant leap just like witch hunts of old.



Kennedy and Nixon were not debating on whether or not discrimination was acceptable as a whole. They were arguing over what areas of society should ban discrimination and what steps should be taken in these areas by the federal government. The two were in basic agreement for certain areas of society such as education. They differed in other areas such as eating establishments. While both wanted to see eating establishments be non-discriminatory their approaches to the problem differed.



Let’s say I open a business today and post a sign that says “Whites Only”. That would obviously be discrimination because it excludes some groups. But it also depends on what type of business is being opened and who exactly I’d be discriminating against. What if I opened a bar with a sign that said “No Muslims”? What if I started a golf course for “Men Only”? What if I started selling billy clubs I make in my garage to “Black Panthers Only”?



Things start to get dicey when you throw a broad net over the term “discrimination” because there are many examples where both businesses and individuals all over this country still discriminate today. Google gives potential employees an aptitude test that 99% of the country would fail. A Muslim bookstore owner may ask a prospective employee, “what phrase is repeated in every chapter of the Qur’an”?



Are they discriminating? You bet.



At the end of the day it is impossible to draw a fine line that defines who exactly can legally discriminate and who cannot. We have passed laws stating colleges cannot discriminate, but they do it all the time. We passed other laws that mandate employers cannot discriminate, but they do it all the time. So it’s easy to paint with a broad brush and have a debate similar to that of Kennedy and Nixson and come to the conclusion all discrimination is bad.



Just be careful what you wish for, you might be surprised what you get.
Podium Pentothal is offline  
Old June 26th, 2012, 02:30 PM   #17
Bye, Ya better behave.
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,841
No ugh, look, I don't care much about the history about the leading to what caused the Civil War. One of the straws that broke the camel back was slavery but I wasn't making the argument that that is were we end up if we have a weaker federal government. What you will see is legalized discrimination. We will essentially return to the days of Jim Crow in some states. Eh, nice rant though
Fayt is offline  
Old June 26th, 2012, 02:55 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fort Rucker, Alabama
Posts: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
No ugh, look, I don't care much about the history about the leading to what caused the Civil War. One of the straws that broke the camel back was slavery but I wasn't making the argument that that is were we end up if we have a weaker federal government. What you will see is legalized discrimination. We will essentially return to the days of Jim Crow in some states. Eh, nice rant though


No one wants America to go back to the racist governess we had in the past. I am a Libertarian and I do not want anyone to have any favor or discourse with their State or Federal governess. Federal law, is the supreme law of the land. To rid of "seperate but equal" and slavery where things that are well within the right of the Federal government to enforce or nullify.



You are being hyperbolic with your assertion that abiding by the consitution is a recipe for discrimination and slavery. The Federal government does not know what is best for the whole country. The framers knew this. The people of the STATE knows what is best for them. This is percisely why we have individual state constitutions, executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. This was made in the manner it was so the state could care for its own citizens.



People in Kansas do not want the same things as New Yorkers. California residents want things that Floridians don't. Federal government controlling the state is wrong, federal government controlling its citizens is wrong. These are as IT would put it; baby steps toward socialized America. When Americans are solely dependent on the federal government there will be no need for state governments, they will just be extentions of the federal government.



The people you live with most likely feel somewhat similar to how you feel. The people who I live around feel about the same way I do. Why do we need a federal government that forces you to think the way I do or forces me to think the way you do? And by think I mean the manner in which a state is governed. Alaskans and Hawaiian (native) hardly care about what Mayor Bloomberg is doing, but what if Bloomberg were president? This separation of governess is what is most appropriate for our many states.
Danjb25 is offline  
Old June 26th, 2012, 04:12 PM   #19
Bye, Ya better behave.
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,841
Well now you're taking it to an extreme because what you are advocating for is that there should be no need for federal laws PERIOD, and that we should just return to the original constitution the Articles of Confederation. Now you're making the argument that we should return to the time of slavery if rather if you know it or not. You should really think harder about what you're saying and read the history for why we forth the Revolutionary War and had a Civil War in the mid 19th century. This discussion has already been debated an your side lost time after time numerously.
Fayt is offline  
Old June 26th, 2012, 04:28 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fort Rucker, Alabama
Posts: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Well now you're taking it to an extreme because what you are advocating for is that there should be no need for federal laws PERIOD, and that we should just return to the original constitution the Articles of Confederation. Now you're making the argument that we should return to the time of slavery if rather if you know it or not. You should really think harder about what you're saying and read the history for why we forth the Revolutionary War and had a Civil War in the mid 19th century. This discussion has already been debated an your side lost time after time numerously.


I'm taking it to an extreme by suggesting we pay attention to what our founding document states? Didn't I just say that the Federal Government passes legilation that is the "supreme law of the land" which is in the Consitution verbatim? I am not saying we need to go back to the Articles of Confederation, nor back to slavery. The Consitution states that all monies will be created by the congress, which we do not do anymore.



You're just being hyperbolic you so can push your socialist agenda.



How on earth is giving the States back the power they are entitled to by our founding document in anways, shape or form, trying to go back to slavery and attempting to nullify the purpose for the Revolutionary War or the Civil War?



If anything, you want to strip the state of there inherent power so that a singular central government can tell all it's citizens what to do. I never once stated there is no purpose for Federal Law, what I am stating is that the Federal Congress is imbibing in legislation that requires the State Congress for admission into law. Federal law is supreme, there is no discussion about that. The central government growth into state affairs is stripping the people of their rights to have state laws that represents their society(state, county, local).



This is repeatedly done with the attitude that not only can a citizen not make decisions for oneself, neither can the state. The Federal government are the only piece of governess that will rightly govern the populous? That is absolutely ridiculous. You're starting to farther left than "progressive" with that argument Fayt, that's Marxist.
Danjb25 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events


Thread Tools
Display Modes



Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.