I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Remember the Bush administration signing on with the automakers in a lawsuit aimed at preventing the state of California from setting its own air emissions standards?
Where is the outcry from the Right, those ardent defenders of the "states' rights" concept?
"Where is the outcry from the Right, those ardent defenders of the "states' rights" concept?--peter jung"
Where? GOH (Grand Old Hypocrites)
And this, is why we should be acively trying to persuade libertarians and conservatives to join our cause - the ABB crusade. Bush serves only an elite few. If he is reelected, kiss your free and uncensored Internet goodbye. The plans are already in the works, all that is lacking is the mandate.
You can vote conservative or you can vote Republican, but you can't do both.
also, GOD also told Rev.Pat to fly diamonds out of Zaire on tax-exempt airplane
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Archiv...3867951,00.html
Back from 1999
I really despise hypocrites and that is almost the biggest reason i hate the Republican Party
Now, just look at it this way. States are just like, well, franchise owners of American Pie. We just need to get them in line with this homogenizing of Amerca. If the little people can just count on the same flavor & service from coast to coast then they have even less to think or worry about. The states will retain the use of original names & boundries. Therefo..... sorry. I had nightmares last night.
Even Lew Rockwell was forced to admit in an interview with Bill Moyers that Democrats are better at balancing the budget and keeping gov't small than Repugs. The Libertarians didn't listen to one of their own then, why should they listen to us now?
Not trying to be defeatist, just realistic.
No duh. As a naive grade-schooler during the civil rights movement, I couldn't figure out why "states' rights"--an extremely dry and abstract concept--had such a hold on some people.
Of course, by the time Rheinquist (having carried water for every mean, bigoted or deep-pocketed party he ever saw under the banner of states' rights) did a 180 on Gore v. Bush, its advocates might as well have "I'm a lying, small-minded bigot" tattooed on their foreheads.
"state's rights" is a code phrase for "the right to own brown people".
Tactically, what they are doing is piling on unfunded mandates and at the same time cutting aid to states from the federal level. Pretty soon, states wont have enough money to have a separate agenda for anything that needs an appropriation. And for all those things that dont need money, we have the court system which is rapidly becoming more right wing than anyone realizes (4 or 5 filibusters notwithstanding)
New Republican Motto:
State Rights as long as it denies civil rights.
What Joey Jojo said. The "states' rights" rallying cry was historically always just a fig leaf for first slavery, and then segregation.
After all, in the South one of the names for the Civil War was "The War for States Rights."
Dem campaign theme: "They're liars. All they do is lie. Everything they say is a lie, about every single subject."
we give them too much credit - like what they do has any semblance in any reality other than greed! there is no cognizant goal they strive for only ethereal ideas (like nazis!) such as financial freedom or legacy or security.
they realized and are steering the boat toward whichever way to be more greedy. big gov't. is evil only when it is controlled by the hippies, er democrats.
states rights only matter when the Greedy Old Party controls state capitals.
bah! we allow stupid to govern we should expect to be bent over!
Quick thread hijack: Florida arrests http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&
cid=638&ncid=762&e=4&u=/nm/20040102/en_nm/
people_rush_dcthe wrong Rush!
Please don't post long URLs. They break haloscan and make it very difficult to read the comments.
Please use tinyurl.com to make long URLs haloscan friendly or paste the URL into the "homepage" field and mention the link in your message.
Thank you!
This would be a good topic to bring up in a debate with Chimpie. It would be interesting to see him stammer and stutter, trying to understand what he should say.
Oh, c'mon fellas. The only party that believes in states rights is the party out of power at the national level.
Yeah, I'm a fan of state's rights. I don't see why people in New York should insist that everything they do or like has to be the norm everywhere else.
Just enough oversight to keep 'em from truly oppressing people (like Jim Crow, the Civil Rights movement of the 60's was a Good Thing) but otherwise, let the regions be the regions. Nothing is more tedious than watching people flee the conditions they created to go to a less dense space (like LA-types fleeing to Coeur d'Alene, Idaho and then promptly want to the local officials to change all the laws and regulations to the same crap that created the conditions that caused 'em to leave in the first place...
A pox on both their houses! Make it hard for 'em to get anything done, and they'll do less mischief.
Golly I'm grumpy today!
You can vote conservative or you can vote Republican, but you can't do both. -- cosmic grappler
Amen to that. This is not your father's Republican Party. No small government, fiscally responsible conservatives here.
These Republicans have no alliegance to any philosophy besides getting power and keeping it.
One thing I learned during the endless and very ideological debates I endured at law school: virtually no one cares about federalism (aka states rights) except as a tool for implementing a substantive policy he or she likes. 150 years ago, it played out like this: you (and most of the other voters in your state) like slavery? Then you're pro-states rights. Fifty years ago, it played out like this: you (and most of the voters in your state) like segregation? Then you're pro-states rights. And so on.
Traditionally, the reactionaries were the ones pushing states rights. With the reactionaries now running the federal government, that has begun to change. I like states rights more, because my local government is moderately progressive.
"These Republicans have no alliegance to any philosophy besides getting power and keeping it."
Right, Peanut.
I just wrote a long post which Haloscan ate. But that was my point. These guys aren't hypocrites. They have no real principles to go against.
How long does it take for Penis Enlargers to work?
It has been six months and it is still tiny.
Molly above is on the right track, "states rights" was part of the Southern strategy. It was a code word that meant, we'll let you keep "them" out of your public schools, out of your lunch counters. It was a coded appeal to racists there and around the country too. It was a tool, not a principle.
The people in control of the Republican Party have only one goal, to turn the federal government into their own profit machine. Even in foreign policy, they want the military to do their dirty work in securing foreign territories and resources for themselves, at taxpayers expense. It is an old-fashioned crime mob. They are all about stealing, murder and oppression are just means to that end.
Everything else is just a smoke screen.
well as I posted elsewhere, it's all about power for the GOP. Everything else is window dressing.
the 'strict constructionist' crap is just that, crap, as well. Conservative jurists will feel free to resort to judicial activism when it suits them.
(Hey, Mr. Scalia, where in the Constitution does it say that homosexuals aren't entitled to the same rights as other Americans?)
And where does the Constitution say the Supreme Court gets to choose the POTUS? Talk about a "strict constructionist's" loose interpretation of the Constitution - their judicial activism currently occupies Al Gore's Oval Office.
States' Rights as an argument only applies when there is a possibility of causing harm to women or minorities.
I dunno, Kimmit. I think "States' rights" is a good argument on the medical marijuana side.
Of course, neither party seems to like that one.
when they need it, i am sure the GOP will drag out states rights again. but only when needed.
But David Brooks tells us it's okay, because it's republicans that are centralizing power; not liberals. So we shouldn't be fearful. Or confused.
DanM,
"The 'states' rights' rallying cry was historically always just a fig leaf for first slavery, and then segregation."
"Always" is putting it way too strong. States' rights were appealed to in the 1850s in support of northern states' refusal to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. And the first use of the "due process" clause of the XIV amendment was to overturn state regulation of the railroads.
Don't you think it's just a little telling that the main force behind centralization and nationalism, for most of our history, has been 1) the Federalists; 2) the Whigs; and 3) the GOP? In all cases, the central government was strengthened to protect the plutes against populism at the state and local level.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
