I'd Like To Ask Our Left Leaning Friends Here A Question.

[Remmus]

8 hours ago, stevenash said:

Come on Rem- tell Tigers2010 that, in spite of what he has gone through, it is worth it because it is for the "common good "and if the government says it is good, it is and it is high time that he finally pay his "fair share".  ( at least that is until "free college" makes it to the forefront again at which time his "fair share" is insufficient and he needs to pay more)

Blame Rick Perry too for turning down funds.  Guess you may have forgot to contribute to his re-election campaign.  Perry stuck to ideology and didn't think about families like Tigers2010's.

 

 

 

 

[Englebert]

12 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Blame Rick Perry too for turning down funds.  Guess you may have forgot to contribute to his re-election campaign.  Perry stuck to ideology and didn't thing about families like Tigers2010's.

 

 

 

 

No, Perry was thinking about all of Texas' families which is why he did everything in his power not to get involved in the Obamacare debacle. Way too many strings attached to that Socialist program and the eminence of dependency on the Federal Government. Kudos to Perry on this one.

[Remmus]

3 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Show me where the fed gov provides over site for the state''s business.

Use the Constitution...not your opinion. 

Wow...how did the states ever make it before the recently intrusive fed gov.

I get it now, you are a centrist...you are all for a centrally controlled country.

Without the Feds the ruling party of a state can make pretty much any daggone laws they very well please at the peril of the under-represented.  For instance a state or even a locale can create an ordinance that allows restaurants to refuse service to Muslims or gays for instance.  Now that very well may be the will of the people of that particular state, but its not fair/right (because we are Americans) to target a particular group.  We've seen this before.  One of the great things about America is we can travel from state to state with the expectation of uniform rights, privileges, and protection.  60 years ago (and further back) depending on who you were it was really important to know what state you were in and the policies/beliefs/laws of those people.  Some of the intrusion we complain about today was put in motion by the government being forced to police the states bad behavior.  This is one reason why minorities have more love for the feds than the states when it comes to social issues.  Historically the Feds provided protection.  MLK had to run to Kennedy cuz Bull Conner wasn't having it.

When the demographics in the country started shifting and Republicans weren't able to buy elections (they tried like heck with Romney) all this talk of states rights spawned.  This is all about a power grab and leveling the playing field.  Trump threw a monkey wrench in the pot and proved that Democrats can't buy elections either.  

[stevenash]

8 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Without the Feds the ruling party of a state can make pretty much any daggone laws they very well please at the peril of the under-represented.  For instance a state or even a locale can create an ordinance that allows restaurants to refuse service to Muslims or gays for instance.  Now that very well may be the will of the people of that particular state, but its not fair/right (because we are Americans) to target a particular group.  We've seen this before.  One of the great things about America is we can travel from state to state with the expectation of uniform rights, privileges, and protection.  60 years ago (and further back) depending on who you were it was really important to know what state you were in and the policies/beliefs/laws of those people.  Some of the intrusion we complain about today was put in motion by the government being forced to police the states bad behavior.  This is one reason why minorities have more love for the feds than the states when it comes to social issues.  Historically the Feds provided protection.  MLK had to run to Kennedy cuz Bull Conner wasn't having it.

When the demographics in the country started shifting and Republicans weren't able to buy elections (they tried like heck with Romney) all this talk of states rights spawned.  This is all about a power grab and leveling the playing field.  Trump threw a monkey wrench in the pot and proved that Democrats can't buy elections either.  

Then if I am hearing you correctly, state governments are corrupt and Fed government is pure.  Talk about naive.

[Reagan]

7 hours ago, Remmus said:

The states need oversight just like the private sector.  I know ur head just exploded, but we'd still be pumping mercury punch in Detroit w/o the Feds.  

Rem -- what does the 10th Amendment say?  I hope it doesn't explode YOUR head!

[PhatMack19]

3 hours ago, Remmus said:

 

There is no question that liberals do an impressive job of expressing concern for blacks. But do the intentions expressed in their words match the actual consequences of their deeds?

San Francisco is a classic example of a city unexcelled in its liberalism. But the black population of San Francisco today is less than half of what it was back in 1970, even though the city's total population has grown.

Severe restrictions on building housing in San Francisco have driven rents and home prices so high that blacks and other people with low or moderate incomes have been driven out of the city. The same thing has happened in a number of other California communities dominated by liberals.

I got confused by that novel, but I did read the part of it that I know a little about.  People have tried to help the minorities in San Fran only to be shot down for being racist. 

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Remmus]

24 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Then if I am hearing you correctly, state governments are corrupt and Fed government is pure.  Talk about naive.

LOL...I don't trust Texas to protect civil rights.  I trust the feds.  I trust states to create amazing business environments.  I don't trust the feds to resist taxing/regulating a business too much. 

[Remmus]

25 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Rem -- what does the 10th Amendment say?  I hope it doesn't explode YOUR head!

"Libya, Libya, Libya"  

[LumRaiderFan]

37 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Without the Feds the ruling party of a state can make pretty much any daggone laws they very well please at the peril of the under-represented.  For instance a state or even a locale can create an ordinance that allows restaurants to refuse service to Muslims or gays for instance.  Now that very well may be the will of the people of that particular state, but its not fair/right (because we are Americans) to target a particular group.  We've seen this before.  One of the great things about America is we can travel from state to state with the expectation of uniform rights, privileges, and protection.  60 years ago (and further back) depending on who you were it was really important to know what state you were in and the policies/beliefs/laws of those people.  Some of the intrusion we complain about today was put in motion by the government being forced to police the states bad behavior.  This is one reason why minorities have more love for the feds than the states when it comes to social issues.  Historically the Feds provided protection.  MLK had to run to Kennedy cuz Bull Conner wasn't having it.

When the demographics in the country started shifting and Republicans weren't able to buy elections (they tried like heck with Romney) all this talk of states rights spawned.  This is all about a power grab and leveling the playing field.  Trump threw a monkey wrench in the pot and proved that Democrats can't buy elections either.  

Read the Constitution. 

[Remmus]

11 minutes ago, PhatMack19 said:

I got confused by that novel, but I did read the part of it that I know a little about.  People have tried to help the minorities in San Fran only to be shot down for being racist. 

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Interesting article.  Another example of well intentioned with bad consequences.  I really don't get into the politics of San-sodom and gomorrah.

[Remmus]

3 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Read the Constitution. 

The Constitution is being used the same way the Bible is used to promote personal or partisan interests.  

[PhatMack19]

5 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Interesting article.  Another example of well intentioned with bad consequences.  I really don't get into the politics of San-sodom and gomorrah.

I work in Real Estate so I keep up with it across the country.  I've built over 200 government houses in the area so I know a little about that as well.  The amount of money that the govt waste on these programs is unbelievable.  I could tell you numbers but you probably wouldn't believe them.  It's good to get paid by the govt. 

[Hagar]

So you trust the Feds for civil rights?  Have you ever considered that the more power the Feds have, the more they can control you?  Take myself for instance.  I'm on SS, and Medicare.  Just for example, they pass a law (executive decision?) that you must stop eating meat, or you'll lose your SS and Medicare.  Personally, I don't like being that vulnerable, but it happened.  That's just an example, but the possibilities and vulnerability is there.  And the more they folks control thru SS, Medicare, Welfare, food stamps, etc, the more potential power they have.  Will they use it.  I doubt anytime soon, but someday.........?

[stevenash]

24 minutes ago, Remmus said:

The Constitution is being used the same way the Bible is used to promote personal or partisan interests.  

Do you believe the Constitution ought to be followed or should it only be followed if one can "prove" it promotes their personal interest?

[Remmus]

20 minutes ago, PhatMack19 said:

I work in Real Estate so I keep up with it across the country.  I've built over 200 government houses in the area so I know a little about that as well.  The amount of money that the govt waste on these programs is unbelievable.  I could tell you numbers but you probably wouldn't believe them.  It's good to get paid by the govt. 

I'm a real estate investing noob and am learning.  Some of that gouging is done by the recipients as well.  

[Remmus]

2 minutes ago, REBgp said:

So you trust the Feds for civil rights?  Have you ever considered that the more power the Feds have, the more they can control you?  Take myself for instance.  I'm on SS, and Medicare.  Just for example, they pass a law (executive decision?) that you must stop eating meat, or you'll lose your SS and Medicare.  Personally, I don't like being that vulnerable, but it happened.  That's just an example, but the possibilities and vulnerability is there.  And the more they folks control thru SS, Medicare, Welfare, food stamps, etc, the more potential power they have.  Will they use it.  I doubt anytime soon, but someday.........?

Uuuuhhhhh????  The debtor is always slave to the debtee, so there's control in all those scenarios.  You're argument is good IMO but really gets into ideology, which I respect.  

[Remmus]

5 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Do you believe the Constitution ought to be followed or should it only be followed if one can "prove" it promotes their personal interest?

It's open to interpretation and these are things Constitutional Law professors are made of.

[LumRaiderFan]

31 minutes ago, Remmus said:

The Constitution is being used the same way the Bible is used to promote personal or partisan interests.  

How so on the Constitution?

[PhatMack19]

15 minutes ago, Remmus said:

I'm a real estate investing noob and am learning.  Some of that gouging is done by the recipients as well.  

Give me a call

[Remmus]

22 minutes ago, PhatMack19 said:

Give me a call

Thank you sir.  I'm in hibernation right now with real estate, but plan to start up again soon.  

[Reagan]

1 hour ago, Remmus said:

It's open to interpretation and these are things Constitutional Law professors are made of.

The 10th Amendment is pretty clear!  If you haven't already, you might want to read it.  trust, you will be able to understand it.  Now -- believing it may be a different story!

[Coach Frey]

9 hours ago, REBgp said:

So you trust the Feds for civil rights?  Have you ever considered that the more power the Feds have, the more they can control you?  Take myself for instance.  I'm on SS, and Medicare.  Just for example, they pass a law (executive decision?) that you must stop eating meat, or you'll lose your SS and Medicare.  Personally, I don't like being that vulnerable, but it happened.  That's just an example, but the possibilities and vulnerability is there.  And the more they folks control thru SS, Medicare, Welfare, food stamps, etc, the more potential power they have.  Will they use it.  I doubt anytime soon, but someday.........?

Seeing how 60 years ago an entire race of people was being treated like second class citizens in this country and the Feds stood by and let it happen (or idiots like Goldwater said the Civil Rights Act should be repealed), I don't hold much faith in the Feds protecting civil rights. Good post REBgp.

[Remmus]

2 hours ago, Coach Frey said:

Seeing how 60 years ago an entire race of people was being treated like second class citizens in this country and the Feds stood by and let it happen (or idiots like Goldwater said the Civil Rights Act should be repealed), I don't hold much faith in the Feds protecting civil rights. Good post REBgp.

When Goldwater was running the feds were still your best chance.  A certain collection of states had people solve race issues with rope.  IJS.

 

[Coach Frey]

13 minutes ago, Remmus said:

When Goldwater was running the feds were still your best chance.  A certain collection of states had people solve race issues with rope.  IJS.

 

And thus you prove the point. If states were lynching, the Feds should have stepped in. They didn't because they are inept.

[Remmus]

4 minutes ago, Coach Frey said:

And thus you prove the point. If states were lynching, the Feds should have stepped in. They didn't because they are inept.

They kinda did with all the laws that are on the books.  I guess some military cops coming to the south to keep watch was really the answer.  Could have set up the old Civil War districts, started appointing governors...