@ghibli. i don’t know why you have to argue that extremes. the northern hemisphere lives as they do currenlty because most are liberal. you live in a liberal society, assuming you’re in the northern U.S. if conservatives didn’t also live here, you would get your experiment but there are too many people, so of course there will be a large contingent of conservatives. your fantasy of sending liberals to some far off place to go conduct some socialist experiment is as ridiculous as your fantasy that conservatives can all live these completely independent lives with no social interaction. there’s just too many people. you’re free to go to some atoll in the pacific ocean and live out your dream but there aren’t many places with any resources where this is possible.
We would try to get him to go play, but the snot nose always wanted to know what was going on. The slip and slide finally got him out of the house.
Some do. There’s a place in Virginia called the Twin Oaks Community.
Our founders gave us a good start. We are ignoring all the warnings of the federalist papers. The constitution is being pissed on. I don’t mind states doing whatever. My beef is with central governments. No danger with strong central power and control. Never has been, right? I had no problem with Romneycare. I have huge issues with Obamacare. Can you understand the difference? I can recommend some literature if you can’t.
it takes effort to believe in your mumbo jumbo. much easier to vote for a government that will force people to act the way you think they should. it’s really great – you can pat yourself on the back for being one of the good people and you don’t even have to lift a finger. you can get up every morning and look in the mirror satisfied that you are making a difference in the lives of so many unfortunate souls.
^I’m not sure I understand Turd’s comment. Is this a quote that I don’t understand?
The strange thing is economic liberals don’t even realize the arrogance in their stated efforts to make my life and the world a better place. The people of California can decide what is best for them. Why is that not ok? States thought it was best to form a union for defense and commerce, as defined in 1776, and that is it. Where does this desire to control everyone’s lives come from? At least the wacko right wing is usually happy with issues that are not specifically covered by the constitution being left to states. Strange I tell ya.
my comment was more general and not really geared towards ghib’s comment in particular.
so you believe a document that was published 240 years ago should be the template for american policy forever? do you actually think some antiquated agreement between a bunch of white slaveowners in a ranch/plantation society is the appropriate template for a multicultural, free society with over 300 million people? most of the constitution is solid but to say, we can’t help anybody out as a society because the constitution says it should be done by other means is simply lazy.
You do realize that the founding fathers created a mechanism by which the document can be altered (or “amended”), right?
In fact, if I’m not mistaken, it has been amended, like, eight times or something. You know?
Yes, but Ghibli’s argument is that those amendments take us away from the founders’ intentions and that is what makes living in today’s world so horrific and intolerable.
Matt’s argument was against the idea of original intent as imagined in 1789 as the only standard that can possibly be valid for today’s society.
Ah, no. The amendents are part of the constitution. I have no problems with admendents. They are a necessary and important part. The problem is that the body and amendments are not being followed. The courts and the executive branch are legislating. We have a mechanism to change the constitution. It should be followed if change is desired. Even Obama himself is doing things he previously stated were unconstitutional. I guess you all want a king or queen. Going to suck when you don’t care for his or her actions. Power has always been abused. That is why it should be limited. Do liberals study history? Or just rewrite it?
So why can’t the States take care of everything beyond defense and commerce? Do the people at the federal level know best? Is that the argument? Federal programs tend to hurt the very people the program supposedly was designed to help. Plot federal intervention and the strength of the black family and black youth unemployment since 1950. That should be enough to illustrate the point. And what is “best” is irrelevant. The rights of the States is a much bigger issue. The “best” way will rise out of the labratories which are the fifty States. No greater arrogance than implementing an untested policy across all fifty States. I sometimes believe the intentions must be nefarious. There doesn’t seem to be any other explanation. Plain incompetence or sheer evil.
^if you’re a politician and you can get away with it, why not do it? there are infinite ways to derive personal benefits as a politician from intervening in the economic lives of individuals. Gotta hand it to them, they’re on a gravy train with biscuit wheels. people who value earned rewards are the idiots.