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.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,761,129 times
Reputation: 3587
Advertisements
It is almost a comedy that conservatives have spent years arguing in favour of "states rights" and crying out in pain about "federal intrusion" into areas that states manage.
I, being a LIBERAL, of course take the view that the Federal Government should be the strong central government and that the functions of states and local governments should be limited.
It is a fact that when the Constitution was wrote, the country was radically different than it is now. There was no mass media, no phones, no internet. Travel was done by horse and took days to go anywhere. And the country was alsmost exclusively rural farmland. It made sense them to have the local governments as the powerful and the far away federal the lessor power. Back then, what happened in one state rarely effected people in other states.
But we don't live in those days anymore. There is very little that happens in one state that does not effect residents in other states. Even the conservatives seem to be coming to this point of view. Consider just these items:
1. Defense of Marriage Act. This act which was championed and pushed by conservatives essentially put the Federal Government in charge of marriage laws for all 50 states to prevent gays who marry in one state from being married in another. They recognized that 2 people who marry in one state will be recognized in all other states.
2. Medical Marijuana. A few states such as California and Oregon legalized this and conservatives have pushed the Federal government hard to go in and prosecute people using marijuana for cancer and such.
3. Auto emission standards. Today President Obama signed a rule allowing states to set tougher emissions standards for passenger vehicles (not diesels that travel interstate) than the Federal EPA standards. Conservatives are having a fit! Why? Because they know that if Florida and California set the standards, auto makers will most likely not make vehicles that violate them because those are big states.
So what one state does in fact effects every other state which is why we need a strong central government. Nice to see conservatives even agree on this!
It is almost a comedy that conservatives have spent years arguing in favour of "states rights" and crying out in pain about "federal intrusion" into areas that states manage.
I, being a LIBERAL, of course take the view that the Federal Government should be the strong central government and that the functions of states and local governments should be limited.
It is a fact that when the Constitution was wrote, the country was radically different than it is now. There was no mass media, no phones, no internet. Travel was done by horse and took days to go anywhere. And the country was alsmost exclusively rural farmland. It made sense them to have the local governments as the powerful and the far away federal the lessor power. Back then, what happened in one state rarely effected people in other states.
But we don't live in those days anymore. There is very little that happens in one state that does not effect residents in other states. Even the conservatives seem to be coming to this point of view. Consider just these items:
1. Defense of Marriage Act. This act which was championed and pushed by conservatives essentially put the Federal Government in charge of marriage laws for all 50 states to prevent gays who marry in one state from being married in another. They recognized that 2 people who marry in one state will be recognized in all other states.
2. Medical Marijuana. A few states such as California and Oregon legalized this and conservatives have pushed the Federal government hard to go in and prosecute people using marijuana for cancer and such.
3. Auto emission standards. Today President Obama signed a rule allowing states to set tougher emissions standards for passenger vehicles (not diesels that travel interstate) than the Federal EPA standards. Conservatives are having a fit! Why? Because they know that if Florida and California set the standards, auto makers will most likely not make vehicles that violate them because those are big states.
So what one state does in fact effects every other state which is why we need a strong central government. Nice to see conservatives even agree on this!
You can add to that blocking the attempt by 16 States to set their own emission standards and advocating Federal intevention in the Blagojevich matter despite the fact that Illinois seems to be ready, willing, and able to handle it properly. As Ronnie used to say, "There they go again!"
What a stupid post, I would have expected better from you KevK, but then again, perhaps not....
What does this have to do with Conservatives? Better yet, where is the supporting article to back your claims? Some statistics, polls, anything? Which Conservatives are 'throwing a fit'? All I see is a moonbat Liberal thinking his opinion is some how better than everyone else's, and that it actually matters what he says on an internet forum.......
The Republican party is interested in installing a Christian theocracy in this country. Whether it takes local governments or the federal government to achieve that goal, it doesn't matter, as long as the goal is achieved.
The Republican party is interested in installing a Christian theocracy in this country. Whether it takes local governments or the federal government to achieve that goal, it doesn't matter, as long as the goal is achieved.
Another intelligent CDF post
If the Republican party is hell bent on installing a Christian theocracy, then why was John McCain, the most nonreligious and moderate candidate in the primaries, elected as the Republican nominee? Why is it when you add and then MULTIPLY the winnings of Huckabee and Romney (the super religious type) they didn't even come close to McCain?
It doesn't matter really, I do not expect a return answer as Liberals detest being caught in a lie.
If the Republican party is hell bent on installing a Christian theocracy, then why was John McCain, the most nonreligious and moderate candidate in the primaries, elected as the Republican nominee? Why is it when you add and then MULTIPLY the winnings of Huckabee and Romney (the super religious type) they didn't even come close to McCain?
It doesn't matter really, I do not expect a return answer as Liberals detest being caught in a lie.
McCain won because Jesus Christ didn't listen to the prayers of the Christian fundies who were backing Huckabee. Their prayers were neutralized by the prayers of the Mormons supporting Romney.
I, being a LIBERAL, of course take the view that the Federal Government should be the strong central government and that the functions of states and local governments should be limited.
Well then, I'd say you are the one with the problem, since that is not how this country was founded.
The Republican party is interested in installing a Christian theocracy in this country. Whether it takes local governments or the federal government to achieve that goal, it doesn't matter, as long as the goal is achieved.
Couldn't agree more.
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.
