Angry at the South

And some folks still wonder why The Democrats find themselves losing more and more of The Electorate with every election. As a Party, they have no message of betterment for The Nation, they have a deathwish.

0 Replies

Ooohhh,

We're shaking in our boots timber.

0 Replies

You cna have nuclear proliferation if you want it so bad.

0 Replies

I'm a Yankee living in the South, and to any Southerner who tries to get on a soapbox about the Civil War and confederate pride, I just remind them: "Remember when AMERICA beat you in the Civil War?

0 Replies

You're gonna get yourself killed that way, Gargamel.

Hey, what is this thread doing in "Humor"?

0 Replies

I vent under a pseudonym on a website.

I don't REALLY have the spine, Eva.

And I'm sure Timber could smack me around if he wanted to, and could.

0 Replies

Slavery wasn't the main focus of the civil war, it was there, but the war was fought over the federal government in power vs. individual state governments in power issue.

The problem with liberals is that they say a lot of things that sound intelligent, but never follow through on figuring out the difference between things that sound good and things that -actually- work. Big federal government (yes the issue stated above) is a big mistake. We should definately be united for defense, for basic commerce and travel regulation. However, the federal government has completely taken over states rights, and is systematically shadowing the liberties of its people.

0 Replies

slaves played a big part in the civil war. as they were the passer on'ers f secert information to the north. no one believed that a slave would be doing such things and often said top secert information while in their midst

0 Replies

Eva wrote:

You're gonna get yourself killed that way, Gargamel.

Hey, what is this thread doing in "Humor"?

It started out in "Politics," but I made the mistake of telling a story. Next thing you know ... its moved to "Humor."

So I guess that answers the question: "How many "funny" posts in a 3-page thread does it take to move a thread to the "Humor" forum?

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

Slavery wasn't the main focus of the civil war, it was there, but the war was fought over the federal government in power vs. individual state governments in power issue.

The problem with liberals is that they say a lot of things that sound intelligent, but never follow through on figuring out the difference between things that sound good and things that -actually- work. Big federal government (yes the issue stated above) is a big mistake. We should definately be united for defense, for basic commerce and travel regulation. However, the federal government has completely taken over states rights, and is systematically shadowing the liberties of its people.

Ahem, speaking of "saying things that sound intelligent, but never follow[ing] through," that's the biggest cliche batted around about the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats. Why don't you follow through and explain how the federal government has completely taken over states rights?

The Patriot Act is a perfect example of the government taking over individual Civil Liberties--to follow through, the undermining of due process.

0 Replies

Hi Gargamel!

Do try to be careful...

0 Replies

Gargamel,

I'm still not allowed to PM people, so can you PM me when you get a chance?

0 Replies

Gargamel wrote:

Portal Star wrote:
Slavery wasn't the main focus of the civil war, it was there, but the war was fought over the federal government in power vs. individual state governments in power issue.

The problem with liberals is that they say a lot of things that sound intelligent, but never follow through on figuring out the difference between things that sound good and things that -actually- work. Big federal government (yes the issue stated above) is a big mistake. We should definately be united for defense, for basic commerce and travel regulation. However, the federal government has completely taken over states rights, and is systematically shadowing the liberties of its people.

Ahem, speaking of "saying things that sound intelligent, but never follow[ing] through," that's the biggest cliche batted around about the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats. Why don't you follow through and explain how the federal government has completely taken over states rights?

The Patriot Act is a perfect example of the government taking over individual Civil Liberties--to follow through, the undermining of due process.

Yes, the patriot act is. And Kerry, by the way, voted for the patriot act.

Federal government regulates business to the point that states have very little to do. Whenever the federal government makes a law it automatically overshadows states. Thus, every new law made by the federal government is a decision that cannot after that point be decided on the state level. A good example is going on right now, on the issue of gay right to marriage. The states have decided individually how to react to the bill, but the federal government is trying to pass a law against gay marriage - thus denying the states the right to have variance on the issue.

The federal government also taxes to the extent that the states cannot tax enough to be able to implement their decisions. They are further controlled by the re-apportioning of federal taxes to states which comply with federal wishes. (Taxes which should have been the state's in the first place, to use as they saw fit.)

And, I'm not a rebublican. I don't like republicans and I don't like democrats. I have a slightly greater disdain for democrats because of their continual expansion of the federal government and federally conducted social programs.

0 Replies

Portal Star:

Well put, and point taken.

However I do think much depends on the particular legislation. There are even some ideals we can associate with a particular region. I mean, it's no coincidence why my neck of the woods is called "The Bible Belt."
What I'm saying is, if the federal government (hypothetically) passed legislation that imposed a minimum property tax for each state, let's say (in my dreams) to curb exploitation of natural resources, that would particularly affect Alabama (my present home state). Alabama's main industry is lumber, and property tax is at 1%. This would indeed be devastating to the state's ecomony. I present this situation merely as a circumstance in which I think your argument is totally relevant. It would be an instance of applying a general rule that has significantly different consequences depending on the state.

On the other hand, most of Alabama thinks it is okay that State Supreme court judge Roy Moore has the ten commandments posted in his court. This, I think, violates separation of church and state, violates the constitution.

Or another example--only forty-one years ago, governor of Alabama George Wallace tried to prevent the first black student from registering for classes at the University, only six blocks away from where I am sitting now. Here is an instance in which it was essential for Kennedy to interfere and assemble the National Guard.

Also, Kerry, like every Senator, voted for the Patriot Act. But he also was behind the SAFE act, which aims to take the fascist edge off the original.

0 Replies

aaaaah, here's the rant. My sister sent me the link, but it somehow never found it's way to my inbox.

0 Replies

Gargamel wrote:

Portal Star:

Well put, and point taken.

However I do think much depends on the particular legislation. There are even some ideals we can associate with a particular region. I mean, it's no coincidence why my neck of the woods is called "The Bible Belt."
What I'm saying is, if the federal government (hypothetically) passed legislation that imposed a minimum property tax for each state, let's say (in my dreams) to curb exploitation of natural resources, that would particularly affect Alabama (my present home state). Alabama's main industry is lumber, and property tax is at 1%. This would indeed be devastating to the state's ecomony. I present this situation merely as a circumstance in which I think your argument is totally relevant. It would be an instance of applying a general rule that has significantly different consequences depending on the state.

On the other hand, most of Alabama thinks it is okay that State Supreme court judge Roy Moore has the ten commandments posted in his court. This, I think, violates separation of church and state, violates the constitution.

Or another example--only forty-one years ago, governor of Alabama George Wallace tried to prevent the first black student from registering for classes at the University, only six blocks away from where I am sitting now. Here is an instance in which it was essential for Kennedy to interfere and assemble the National Guard.

Also, Kerry, like every Senator, voted for the Patriot Act. But he also was behind the SAFE act, which aims to take the fascist edge off the original.

All the examples you cited were bill of rights/constitutional. I am fine with states not violating these, and I think that civil liberties should be upheld. However, there are billions more issues that aren't bill of rights related where the federal government reigns supreme.

Even in instances where the law was badly upheld, people could have the choice to move to a state more in their favor.

On a side note, isn't it a bit silly for the cool aid man to be chatting with speed racer about politics in the humor forum?

0 Replies

Angry at the South

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know