Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, maybe that's not the scientific evidence you are looking for, but someone in Carteret County, NC is convinced his politics and his religion were pre-ordained.
Unfortunately, he or she didn't know (or at least didn't care) that the neurons and synapses needed to have known any such thing were not sufficently formed and developed to permit such knowledge three months before being born, or the claim might have been phrased differently. Many people may take pride in "I come from a long line of..."-type statements, but there aren't many necessary ties between those and reality.
The only thing I was preordained to do was boogie....how I do love to cut a rug! I've even heard rumors of a few conservatives shaking their tushies out on the dance floor! Go figure.
Your view -- if that of the typical Tenth Amendment touter -- is a threat to the well-being of hundreds of millions of Americans. You lose any interest or support I might have offered at "a few basic federal govt responsibilities".
Much of all this disagreement that you can't seem to abide derives from direct attacks on Constitutional rights by fundamentalist religion. Most of us don't like fundamentalist religion on Sunday and wouldn't care for it on any of the other six days of the week either. Much of the rest derives from some Marlboro Man, self-made man, wild stallion roaming free across the open plains imagery that has somehow become stuck in some people's heads. They don't recall that they live in a society and are in fact pieces in a puzzle as the result. No way any of them should be in charge either.
As for lobbying, it too is a Constitutional right, and if money were to be somehow migrated from federal to state control, guess who would be coming along with that.
No problem,
You do not have to support my proposal, I don't expect to please everyone. Regardless, I do see my plan as the one with the most political stability for all ideologies, even the ones I disagree with. It's interesting to argue that it will not benefit everyone since people's cherished programs will still be available at the state level, for all states that choose to have them. Also, people can move or states can use the commerce clause to end their systems to people in other states if they like. If Vermont wants to extend their single payer program to folks in Texas who aren't covered in that state, the commerce clause would allow it.
And no, I am not a "typical" Tenth Amendment supporter. I cannot be since I am a Black American. I am a Tenth Amendment supporter with a caveat for all civil rights being strongly protected by the federal government.
States already have broad powers to legislate solutions to their own problems, and both Congress and the federal courts strongly encourage them to act in their capacities as "laboratories" experimenting with new solutions to emerging or developing issues and problems.
What states cannot do is claim -- as many actually do -- that the Tenth Amendment provides license to a state to abrogate the Constitutional rights of those within its jurisdiction or to act in deliberate subversion of higher law. Such "hidden agendas" all but inevitably lie behind arguments for a stronger Tenth Amendment than the one we actually have, thus the suspicion over just what your plans might have involved. At that, I'm not sure the Commerce Clause -- establishing a federal power -- could easily resolve issues where states enact mutually contradictory and irreconcilable law. Would have to consider some examples there, I guess.
States already have broad powers to legislate solutions to their own problems, and both Congress and the federal courts strongly encourage them to act in their capacities as "laboratories" experimenting with new solutions to emerging or developing issues and problems.
What states cannot do is claim -- as many actually do -- that the Tenth Amendment provides license to a state to abrogate the Constitutional rights of those within its jurisdiction or to act in deliberate subversion of higher law. Such "hidden agendas" all but inevitably lie behind arguments for a stronger Tenth Amendment than the one we actually have, thus the suspicion over just what your plans might have involved. At that, I'm not sure the Commerce Clause -- establishing a federal power -- could easily resolve issues where states enact mutually contradictory and irreconcilable law. Would have to consider some examples there, I guess.
Yep, we'd have to go through specific examples and situations I suppose. I've already said that I want the feds to enforce and protect citizens' rights, so we're on the same page there.
I think there is evidence to support the idea that you come in w/ preferences and traits or tendencies. Where they lead depends on other factors, one being environment.
However, conservative or liberal are just labels. Two limited ones, at that imo.
My mother was a total liberal. She spent money on everything from psychics to 'free land in Baja California!', and insisted that the bank clerks had to be stealing her money, because she never had any. One year she spent $5000 on psychics alone. When my father passed, she blew through the $K's he had in his savings account as well as his insurance money in less than 6 months - with literally nothing to show for it, not a diamond, not even a used car. Then she insisted that it was the government's and everyone else's responsibility to pay her bills and indulgences. The world was never the way that she insisted that it should be, and that made her angry and bitter. She demanded respect, and was always furious when my father - who earned it - superceded her in the limelight. Which meant that she was furious a LOT...
What you described above is an unstable individual who probably needed psychiatric help. Nowhere do you illustrate her political or social beliefs and attitudes. Anyone could be both conservative and just as unbalanced as you describe your mother to be. In fact, having grown up in Dallas TX, I've seen plenty of examples.
Saw the other thread about "born gay?" and it brought up a different thought.
Researchers have been able to use magnetic fields to basically turn on or off sections of the brain, and people who have had brain injuries have sometimes spontaneously changed attitudes including religion and political affiliation. I hesitate to say it, but the studies I have read indicated that the trend was for people with damaged brains to become more conservative. I make nothing of that other than the possibility there might be an "overlay" of the brain that when damaged causes the brain to revert.
My observation of kids as I was growing up was that some kids seemed quite set in their views very early on, while others went through various permutations of attitudes and behaviors until they locked into one.
So:
1. are attitudes based on nurture or nature?
2. can they be changed by "boot camps" or other means?
For those of you who can't resist...
3. is one attitude superior to others?
No, I think it totally depends on the way people are raised. From what I understand, conservatives are taught that they are better than everybody else and to look down on anybody poor or who doesn't think the way they do. Liberals, are a bit more humble and are taught to share and get along. Not saying either one is better, just stating my opinion.
No, I think it totally depends on the way people are raised. From what I understand, conservatives are taught that they are better than everybody else and to look down on anybody poor or who doesn't think the way they do. Liberals, are a bit more humble and are taught to share and get along. Not saying either one is better, just stating my opinion.
I think you're spouting the liberal stereotype of conservatives. You didn't explicity say one was better than the other, but your bias shows. There are plenty of liberals who think they are superior to others, especially conservatives.
And it turns out, even some liberals are admitting that conservatives are actually more charitable than they are. One liberal guy even wrote a book about it:
Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism
I think you're spouting the liberal stereotype of conservatives. You didn't explicity say one was better than the other, but your bias shows. There are plenty of liberals who think they are superior to others, especially conservatives.
And it turns out, even some liberals are admitting that conservatives are actually more charitable than they are. One liberal guy even wrote a book about it:
Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism
Well, I'm not a liberal and I disagree with them about as often as I disagree with conservatives. So, maybe you're the one who's biased. I think both sides lay claim to some form of superiority, with liberals it's moral superiority and with conservatives it's economic superiority. They're just different sides of the same coin and my initial reference was toward economic superiority (even if I didn't type it out for you, word for word).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
