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.
I think it was the WEF that I was watching one of their segments on YouTube that brought that little known fact into the conversation. Governors of States are in a much better position to see to the needs (address like climate change) of their citizens, as well as, they have the power to do so. They seemed to think we will see more taking the lead over the Federal Government in certain decisions. I guess in that, we'll see in the years to come, if that is true or not, or if the Federal Government tells them to sit down and shut up.
The "lead" shows a misunderstanding of our founding father's intent which was to allow the weakest federal government possible, focused solely on keeping us safe from foreign enemy nations.
They wanted, as I do, local government empowered as much as possible.
I think it was the WEF that I was watching one of their segments on YouTube that brought that little known fact into the conversation. Governors of States are in a much better position to see to the needs (address like climate change) of their citizens, as well as, they have the power to do so. They seemed to think we will see more taking the lead over the Federal Government in certain decisions. I guess in that, we'll see in the years to come, if that is true or not, or if the Federal Government tells them to sit down and shut up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960
Feds will not tell states to shut up, nor should they. They see the writing on the wall, Senate & House will be GOP controlled 1-23, with divided government at feds, plus a SC who is against adding to federal power.
The Feds though have all these little alphabet agencies doing its bidding ... so idk. I found a little chart that describes how the WEF sees the Future of Government.
Local desires in the past resulted in the lynching of Black men who "looked" at a White woman. Local desires resulted in Blacks getting arrested for carrying a handgun while Whites were free to do so. Local desires are not the end all, be all solution.
Roy Bryant & John William “J.W.” Milam were indicted for Emmett Till's murder, & five attorneys from Sumner offered to defend the pair pro bono. The trial took place in September 1955 in Sumner at the Tallahatchie County Courthouse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960
100 years ago, that did occur. Times have changed.
The feds upheld Plessy about that same time. They were, for decades, the protector, of what you wrote above.
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 was 1896.
It's worth noting another 'worst SCOTUS decision' was Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857); a harbinger of the American Civil War.
I think it was the WEF that I was watching one of their segments on YouTube that brought that little known fact into the conversation. Governors of States are in a much better position to see to the needs (address like climate change) of their citizens, as well as, they have the power to do so. They seemed to think we will see more taking the lead over the Federal Government in certain decisions. I guess in that, we'll see in the years to come, if that is true or not, or if the Federal Government tells them to sit down and shut up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960
The "lead" shows a misunderstanding of our founding father's intent which was to allow the weakest federal government possible, focused solely on keeping us safe from foreign enemy nations.
They wanted, as I do, local government empowered as much as possible.
I understand how the FF wanted to have a weak federal Government, however, over the years the Federal Government has been garnering more and more power in law making, where as, we also have unconstitutional laws, as well.
The idea was great but it's been distorted. So much so, people like in this thread would much rather have a strong dictatorship rather than their voice be heard. They believe the Federal Government speaks for them on issues close to home.
Nope. I'm quite clear in my explanation. The pro-abortion/pro-choice contingent's sole argument: State laws restricting abortion violate women's right to abortion.
Well, we've all seen how that's an utterly absurd argument given the following...
We accepted restrictions on our 2nd Amendment Rights as state legislatures passed increasingly restrictive gun control laws.
We accepted restrictions on our 4th and 5th Amendment Rights when state legislatures and local governing bodies passed civil forfeiture laws that let the government strip us of our assets regardless of whether we've been convicted of a crime or even charged with one at all.
Etc.
Now, state legislatures are choosing to restrict abortion to varying degrees, and suddenly some of you act all surprised and indignant? Really?
As soon as the first infringement on any of our rights was accepted, the slide down that slippery slope began. It should surprise no one, at this point, that state legislatures CAN and DO restrict our rights as they see fit. Abortion is no different.
Give it up already.
Why Aren’t Libertarians Protesting the Freedom-Busting Texas Abortion Law?
On deregulation and Covid masks, libertarians are loud. On female liberty, deafening silence.
I would like to be wrong. Please let me know if you see any influential libertarians in the media protesting the Texas outrage. Or marching in the streets on behalf of women’s reproductive freedom.
But if I am understanding all this correctly, I have to conclude that a libertarian is someone who will defend a woman’s right not to wear a medical mask during a pandemic, but inexplicably holds that choices about her body, her health, her economic situation, and her entire life trajectory, belong to the government. Let freedom ring?
Why Aren’t Libertarians Protesting the Freedom-Busting Texas Abortion Law?
On deregulation and Covid masks, libertarians are loud. On female liberty, deafening silence.
I would like to be wrong. Please let me know if you see any influential libertarians in the media protesting the Texas outrage. Or marching in the streets on behalf of women’s reproductive freedom.
But if I am understanding all this correctly, I have to conclude that a libertarian is someone who will defend a woman’s right not to wear a medical mask during a pandemic, but inexplicably holds that choices about her body, her health, her economic situation, and her entire life trajectory, belong to the government. Let freedom ring?
Libertarianism has nothing to do with the truths I've posted:
The pro-abortion/pro-choice contingent's sole argument: State laws restricting abortion violate women's right to abortion.
Well, we've all seen how that's an utterly absurd argument given the following...
We accepted restrictions on our 2nd Amendment Rights as state legislatures passed increasingly restrictive gun control laws.
We accepted restrictions on our 4th and 5th Amendment Rights when state legislatures and local governing bodies passed civil forfeiture laws that let the government strip us of our assets regardless of whether we've been convicted of a crime or even charged with one at all.
Etc.
Now, state legislatures are choosing to restrict abortion to varying degrees, and suddenly some of you act all surprised and indignant? Really?
As soon as the first infringement on any of our rights was accepted, the slide down that slippery slope began. It should surprise no one, at this point, that state legislatures CAN and DO restrict our rights as they see fit. Abortion is no different.
So what makes you think the government can seize anyone's assets at any time they wish without having charged them with or prosecuted them for any crime whatsoever?
They'll be victims of their own irresponsibility. Darwin Award, so to speak.
There are thousands and thousands of cases where law enforcement has confiscated cash or assets from people who were never charged with a crime. Someone gets pulled over for looming "suspicious", the police find cash and confiscate it. A civil lawsuit is then filed styled <Name of Government Entity> vs $16,000 cash. The cost to defend the suit often exceeds the amount taken, so the poor schlub who was on his way to buy a truck loses the money. Do a search using police take money of man on way to buy truck as the criteria. You will be shocked how much cash is taken by cops.
Well, saying women who die from illegal abortions are Darwin Award winners is exactly what I would a non pro-life anti-abortionist to say.
Well, saying women who die from illegal abortions are Darwin Award winners is exactly what I would a non pro-life anti-abortionist to say.
Would you perform any medical procedure on yourself? I would not. The odds of doing it correctly and safely, unless medically trained, are a million to one.
There are thousands and thousands of cases where law enforcement has confiscated cash or assets from people who were never charged with a crime. Someone gets pulled over for looming "suspicious", the police find cash and confiscate it. A civil lawsuit is then filed styled <Name of Government Entity> vs $16,000 cash. The cost to defend the suit often exceeds the amount taken, so the poor schlub who was on his way to buy a truck loses the money. Do a search using police take money of man on way to buy truck as the criteria. You will be shocked how much cash is taken by cops.
And, somehow, you think states' abilities to restrict abortion is any different?
Quote:
Well, saying women who die from illegal abortions are Darwin Award winners is exactly what I would a non pro-life anti-abortionist to say.
We all take calculated risks every day of our lives. Everyone knows abortion can kill a woman. It almost always kills an unborn child.
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.
Give it up already.