Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-12-2013, 10:48 AM
bUU
 
Location: Florida
12,077 posts, read 10,654,553 times
Reputation: 8793

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
Utter nonsense.
In other words, you had nothing worthwhile to say in response, so you thought it would be convincing to just try to deny it without foundation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-12-2013, 10:49 AM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,937,560 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by John F S View Post
The American government is NOT oppressive - unless you are a ridiculous, paranoid,
conservative, who hates the fact that a black, liberal, Democrat has been the President for the last 5 years. People who listen to unintelligent morons like Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc., also tend to become unintelligent themselves.

Any traitorous American who advocates secession should be arrested and shot by a firing squad.

The British had every right to kill whichever rebels that they caught and may have if they had won - but they didn't - Thank Goodness.
The North had every right to kill every Southerner who seceded in the 1860's. Some Northern politicians wanted a harsher treatment than Lincoln wanted.
The only thing that needs to be added to this, is that every strongman and dictator in recorded history has also believed pretty much the same thing. Removal of dissent by execution was a tactic by Stalin, and amazingly enough, it didn't work. He did temporarily suppress dissent publicly, but he was never able to force the body of the people to commit themselves to HIS purposes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2013, 10:51 AM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,937,560 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly View Post
You should understand what anti-federalism and conservatism is all about.
Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You should not lie about other people. Where's our liberal moderators taking this for what it is? A deliberately false personal attack on anyone who disagrees with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2013, 10:52 AM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,937,560 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
In other words, you had nothing worthwhile to say in response, so you thought it would be convincing to just try to deny it without foundation.
No, pretty much like everything else you say, it's nothing but babble, with no actual reasoning or rational thought behind it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2013, 10:54 AM
bUU
 
Location: Florida
12,077 posts, read 10,654,553 times
Reputation: 8793
More self-serving claptrap. Predictable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2013, 10:56 AM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,937,560 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
More self-serving claptrap. Predictable.
LOL, you have no idea what you're even arguing.

The idea that the 14th Amendment proves the validity and need for a strong, centralized government is beyond any rational explanation. You cannot defend it with any reason, nor can you even create a convincing argument not based on falsehood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2013, 10:58 AM
bUU
 
Location: Florida
12,077 posts, read 10,654,553 times
Reputation: 8793
Yet, it is you who hasn't even tried to explain how the constitutional amendment that is repeatedly referenced in court cases supporting federal supremacy doesn't support the validity of a strong, centralized government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2013, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Laurentia
5,580 posts, read 7,965,117 times
Reputation: 2442
How typical. We start out with a discussion about what sort of union we should have had and we come right back to Obama .

Quote:
Originally Posted by John F S View Post
The Confederacy was anti-federalist. There government was a failure even before they lost militarily.
Actually, it wasn't anti-federalist. The Confederate Constitution was pretty much a copy of the U.S. Constitution with a few provisions changed. You can see a line-by-line comparison here. From the same webpage:

Quote:
At least three states rights are explicitly taken away- the freedom of states to grant voting rights to non-citizens, the freedom of states to outlaw slavery within their borders, and the freedom of states to trade freely with each other.

States only gain four minor rights under the Confederate system- the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach federally-appointed state officials, and the power to distribute "bills of credit." When people champion the cause of reclaiming state power from the feds, are matters like these at the tops of their lists of priorities?
The Confederacy was intended to be a union for Southerners, not an anti-federalist system based on states' rights. The main anti-Union arguments are "the South had a right to secede" and "all the bloodshed was unnecessary", not "the Confederate system was so great". There are some who use that argument, but for the bulk of the anti-Lincoln crowd that isn't the issue.

I sympathize with the anti-federalist position and oppose what Lincoln did in 1861, but I like the Confederate system of government less than the Constitution we have today.

Quote:
In my opinion, any American who advocates secession should be arrested and then shot by a firing squad.
Thank you for being such a paragon of American goodness. I mean, killing people in cold blood for doing the same thing the American Founders did when they created America is very American, isn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
You should not lie about other people. Where's our liberal moderators taking this for what it is? A deliberately false personal attack on anyone who disagrees with you.
If they took down every personal attack here, this forum wouldn't exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
It is A SELF EVIDENT RIGHT OF HUMANITY to separate itself from any government that becomes oppressive.

Seems you learned nothing in civics. Nor American history. Nor life, about how freedom is the GOAL of legitimate government, not forced subservience.
I agree with that; self-governance and secession are natural rights that belong to all of mankind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly View Post
You should understand what anti-federalism and conservatism is all about.
Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In my view Jim Crow violated equal protection/14th Amendment, which is (as it should be) in the federal sphere. Even if it was legitimately a state-level issue, I don't see how anyone could support that. Jim Crow put businesses in a straightjacket and inhibited competition, in that a business that wanted to compete by integrating whites and blacks was legally prohibited from doing so. Jim Crow was an affront to property rights, and conservatives oppose that sort of thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Anyone who thinks that Democrats of the late 1800s and early 1900s were progressives simply doesn't know American History. One of the most famous people of that time, noted as being a "progressive", was Theodore Roosevelt - a Republican.
You're leaving out an awful lot of Progressive Democrats of that era, including William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson. As a matter of fact in one of his books Andrew Napolitano considers Roosevelt and Wilson to be something akin to two peas in a pod - one was a Democrat and the other was a Republican. The Democratic party was the more conservative of the two, but both parties of that era had progressive and conservative wings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Common Anomaly View Post
Why lie? Conservatives have been fighting for state;s right for decades in order to implement racist institutions, take away women's reproductive rights, make gays second class citizens, and push creationism as science.
The main drivers of states' rights, block grants, and the like is to experiment with new public school methods and school vouchers, try new ways of managing Medicaid, and experiment with health care reform. A smaller federal government will also enable states to have increasingly different business regulations and tax structures, which can be tailored to each state's situation and bring out more competition between the states in terms of attracting people and businesses, as well as economic growth and quality of life. The 50 states have a common market, which leads to a grand opportunity for choice and competition between the states if they were all allowed to go their own way. Devolving more functions also enables control of these functions to be more locally-tailored and more responsive to the people's needs than the many layers of bureaucracy controlled from Washington.

Quote:
But all of a sudden Cons agree with the "big bad government" and liberals, yet their party is completely devoid of minority support.....oh wait, Cons blame minorities of being too stupid and voting against their interest.
An equally valid question to ask is "why can't Democrats attract the support of whites"? To pretend that minority support matters but white support is irrelevant is a racist attitude. A lot of the Republican explanations for the lack of minority support can be very condescending, but I also seem to recall a lot of Democrats saying that those backward inbred rednecks have been hoodwinked into voting against their own interests.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Yet, it is you who hasn't even tried to explain how the constitutional amendment that is repeatedly referenced in court cases supporting federal supremacy doesn't support the validity of a strong, centralized government.
The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with federal supremacy. I think you're referring to the incorporation doctrine, in that the Fourteenth Amendment takes the protections people have from the federal government and also applies them against state governments, including the equal protection clause. That alters nothing in the federal system, in terms of federal domination. The Supremacy Clause is what is referred to to justify federal supremacy, but that was part of the original Constitution. Furthermore, the Supremacy Clause states that the Constitution, and the federal laws made in pursuance thereof, are supreme. If a federal law falls outside of the powers the states delegated to the federal government under the Constitution, the supremacy clause doesn't apply. So I don't see anything that justifies your assertion that the system was legally changed to one where the federal government has so much more power than it did originally.

Last edited by Patricius Maximus; 10-12-2013 at 11:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2013, 11:35 AM
 
9,470 posts, read 6,937,560 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Yet, it is you who hasn't even tried to explain how the constitutional amendment that is repeatedly referenced in court cases supporting federal supremacy doesn't support the validity of a strong, centralized government.
I don't need to. You're the one who asserted it. I don't have to prove you wrong, YOU have to prove yourself right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2013, 11:41 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,916,116 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by GypsumCement View Post
First enacted in 1876, the bulk of Jim Crow laws were passed in many states from 1890 to 1919 and remained as laws until the 1960's.

If we look at history, the exact time the Progressive Era was taking place in politics. The same time that the most racist President to ever hold office after the civil war, enacted many racial segregating laws.
Is there supposed to be some connection between the progressive movement and Woodrow Wilson's not exactly rare view on race?

Quote:
White & Black Republicans stood up once again in the 1960's to free the slaves.
The last time I checked slaves were freed in the 1860's. But be that as it may, what seems to get left out of these conservative narrative histories of the Civil Rights movement are the significant events between 1932 and the 1960's; the role of Roosevelt in the establishment of the Fair Employment Practices Committee which prohibited federal discrimination in hiring. It leaves out Truman's executive order integrating the U.S. military and most importantly it leaves out the the political pressure brought to bare on the federal government by staunch Democrat trade unionist like A. Philip Randolph, Walter Ruther, Phillip Murray, David McDonald and I.W. Abel.

And most importantly the narrative seems to always leave out the legal strategy devised by the NAACP's lead attorney and future Supreme Court Justice Thurogood Marshall whose string of legal victories lead to the dismemberment of Plessy v Ferguson which removed any constitutional barriers to any proposed civil rights legislation. That decision was Brown v Board of education which was decided unanimously by the Court comprised of eight Justices nominated by Democratic Presidents, three of whom were from the south, Hugo Black (Al), Stanley Forman Reed(KY) and James F. Byrnes (SC).

Quote:
MLK was a Republican.
This Republican meme needs to be put to rest. Martin Luther King Sr, was a Republican there is absolutely no evidence that Martin Luther King Jr as a Republican in fact his family has refuted that argument Martin Luther King III, said: "It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican."
Read more at snopes.com: Four Things You Didn't Know About Martin Luther King

Quote:
The civil rights act was composed by a republican caucus in the 1950's. JFK refused to sign it first as a Senator and again as President. LBJ signed it as a compromise to get his grand idea of "Great Society" passed. The democrats threw a fit for allowing black people the freedom they had. Notice LBJ didn't even try to run for re-election?
Now this is complete and udder nonsense. What was proposed in the 1950's was the Civil Rights Act of 1957. The bill proposed by Eisenhower's Attorney General Herbert Brownell was to insure enforcement of the 15th Amendment, the right to vote. Johnson then Majority Leader made a devils bargain, (see John Boehner) by acceding to strong support for the bill amongst northern Democrats Johnson supported the legislation, but only after allowing the southern faction of the party to gut the bill as to make it unenforcible and in so doing made the cynical argument that "Once you break virginity, it'll be easier next time."

When it came to Civil Rights, John Kennedy made the same political calculations are Johnson. How to achieve the Presidency without alienating Southern Democrats but the fact is there was no bill to sign having passed in 1957! Kennedy's heel dragging on the legislative front was not the on the same par with his very activist actions in appointments or the increased attention that the Justice Department paid to enforcing and strengthening the 1957 legislation. I hasten to add that the far stronger and more inclusive Civil Rights Bill of 1964 was crafted and proposed during his administration and presented before the Congress by Lyndon Johnson shortly after taking office.

I would go on, but at this point we've debunked enough of your post as to not to have to go full Taylor Branch on you, but the bottom line is that whatever the efforts that were made by the Republican Party (and there were many) in favor of the passage of the Civil Rights bill, went out the door with the 1964 campaign of Barry Goldwater. So it is the height of irony that the strong federalist position taken by the Republican Party prior to 1964 that has now morphed into the states rights party ala the Dixiecrats feels that it has some claim to the heritage of the Republican Party prior to 1964, it doesn't and no amount of spinning the past is going to change that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top