Two-edged sword

[The_Horses_Boy]

note: this thread is started more by more a question than a statement, even if it may seem otherwise.


I have heard people call on the GOP for "not accepting the differences of others and they, the GOP, forcing their views on others." This argument may hold some validity (take note: I am not a Republican), but I find that it most certainly falls apart when you notice that most of the people making these claims are Democrats. The Democrats are opposed to states' rights, which lets people live the way that they want to, unrestricted, more than any other idea in our system (I think).

It would most certainly seem to me that it is really some hypocrisy that almost isn't seen. A Democrat may call on the GOP for not accepting the differences of others (namely in homosexuality), but most of these same people will deny states rights, basically denying people to live the way that they want to. Isn't this the same thing that they call on the GOP for, forcing their views on other people?

Now I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to attack Democrats, I'm sure that someone could find an example that goes the complete opposite way. I'm merely trying to make the point of this particular kind of hypocrisy. Before you condemn anyone for not accepting others' ways of life or such, you should first check to condemn yourself. How can you argue that people shouldn't force their views on others (particularly in the case of homosexuality) if you will not permit states' rights?

 

[momalle1]

Democrats are opposed to state's rights?

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Democrats are opposed to state's rights?

Sorry, I didn't mean to say it like that. Most people who beleive in States Rights, though, are not Democrat, and most people who look down on it are. Just a most matter, not a defined party line.

I for one haven't met a Democrat who beleived in (real) States Rights, and this question was spurred on by a convesation with a Democrat who beleived that the GOP was merely forcing it's views on a minority in things like homosexuality, and that forcing your views on others is wrong, yet was ardently opposed to states rights which.

 

[momalle1]

I for one haven't met a Democrat who beleived in (real) States Rights.

You have now!

I do agree with you though, there are more Democrats that would have a more centralized government than Republicans, then again, Republicans claim to be the party of small government and small spending, yet most still support the current admin vehomently.

 

[fillerbunny]

You have now!

I do agree with you though, there are more Democrats that would have a more centralized government than Republicans, then again, Republicans claim to be the party of small government and small spending, yet most still support the current admin vehomently.

So true. My republican relatives (most of whom still support the current administration) are always going on about 'less government!' and 'conservative spending!' and the like (especially when dem-bashing) and all I can think is, 'have you spent the past few years living under a rock or what?'

 

[momalle1]

So true. My republican relatives (most of whom still support the current administration) are always going on about 'less government!' and 'conservative spending!' and the like (especially when dem-bashing) and all I can think is, 'have you spent the past few years living under a rock or what?'

I seem to remember a little over a year ago, it wasn't Democrats that were supporting an amendment to ban same sex marriage. Seems Republicans support states rights when it suits their needs.

 

[Vermithrax]

Wrong forum for this discussion. Someone move it over to Politics.

And clearly the current government wants to expand the government, tell us what our morality is, and basically tell us how to behave. Christians have been given more reign under the current administration to hate than ever before.

Oh, you don't think so? Well, let me see. The fight against science is worse now than ever. Women's rights are under threat. The Christian desire for an Armageddon in the Middle East is being served. And anti-homosexual legislation is in full flood.

All very Christian. Oh, I nearly forgot states rights. I forget which states have elected to allow medical marjuana or elective suicide, but the government has blocked that. So much for States Rights.

Oh, expanding the government? Creation of that new intelligence agency under Tom Ridge. That's for starters. Unlawful wire-tapping. Torture of prisoners not in the US. The simple fact that I, a tax-paying legal resident, have no rights because I'm not a citizen, and people like you agree with it. And I'm caucasian and English. Just because someone like you gets irritated at me, I could get arrested, taken outside the country, and tortured just because I disagree with you.

And this is under the Republicans. Which you claim can't possibly happen.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

You guys are right, it goes both ways. I am, personally, an advocate for states rights (and am glad to see a Democrat who is too!). I am sure that you are all familiar with the man who said:

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton


He also said, in a letter to Robert E. Lee after the war, that he was sad to see the cause die because states rights is central to Democracy and is the only check on the central government (this is all from memory, the quote a paraphrase, so I may be off slightly).



Vermithrax, I think that you take it too far. I don't like the current government. No one does. Bush isn't a true conservative. As far as the "fight against science," that is pushing it. I am not against science: I am against unethical science and I am against science beigh taught improperly (teaching scientific theory as fact=schools suck). Women's rights aren't under attack, unless you are talking about the right to murder their unborn babies. There is no anti-homosexual legislation.


You've got it all wrong. "Christian desire for armageddon in the middle east being fulfilled?" Dude, we have nukes. If our desires in the Middle East weren't humane we'd use them.

I would ramble on some more, but I've got to go, hence I'm usre that I've been unable to clean up my post. My apologies for anything that is out of line, as somehting probabaly is.

 

[MethodMan]

You have now!

I do agree with you though, there are more Democrats that would have a more centralized government than Republicans, then again, Republicans claim to be the party of small government and small spending, yet most still support the current admin vehomently.

Then you must be against Roe vs Wade then.

 

[momalle1]

Then you must be against Roe vs Wade then.

Why? The SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution to say what RvW spells out, and has upheld it many times. State's rights do not give the sovereign entities the ability to conflict with the Constitution. If a state were to ban all guns and the SCOTUS were forced to make a decision calling the states actions illegal, I would have to stand by that decision as it doesn't violate state's rights as spelled out in the Constitution. Removing emotion and your feelings about abortion, I don't see how RvW violates state's rights, it sounds like a lame attempt by "pro-lifers" to inflict their views on everyone else.

 

[MethodMan]

Why? The SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution to say what RvW spells out, and has upheld it many times. State's rights do not give the sovereign entities the ability to conflict with the Constitution.

Is that what happened? Hardly.

If a state were to ban all guns and the SCOTUS were forced to make a decision calling the states actions illegal, I would have to stand by that decision as it doesn't violate state's rights as spelled out in the Constitution. Removing emotion and your feelings about abortion, I don't see how RvW violates state's rights, it sounds like a lame attempt by "pro-lifers" to inflict their views on everyone else.

The Court overstepped its boundries of said Constitution. 10th Amendment, Period.

 

[momalle1]

Is that what happened? Hardly.



The Court overstepped its boundries of said Constitution. 10th Amendment, Period.

Maybe you could explain to us how that is.

 

[MethodMan]

Maybe you could explain to us how that is.

Us?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Show us how the USSC was able to side-step this.

 

[momalle1]

Us?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Show us how the USSC was able to side-step this.

Yes, and the SCOTUS read the Constitution and saw a right to privacy guaranteed to citizens and saw that it applied here. I'm not saying I agree with the view of privacy and/or that it applies to abortion, but the Supreme Court feels it, and has every time it's been challenged. In that, the "powers" arguement doesn't apply, the states don't have the right to step on individual rights.

 

[MethodMan]

Yes, and the SCOTUS read the Constitution and saw a right to privacy guaranteed to citizens and saw that it applied here. I'm not saying I agree with the view of privacy and/or that it applies to abortion, but the Supreme Court feels it, and has every time it's been challenged. In that, the "powers" arguement doesn't apply, the states don't have the right to step on individual rights.

Then why did the Democrats and Sepctor worry so much about precedence of Roe & Casey? Spector even floated the "Super Precedence" garbage during the Roberts hearing.

You do realize the USSC has ruled against what is stated in the Constituion before.

 

[momalle1]

Then why did the Democrats and Sepctor worry so much about precedence of Roe & Casey? Spector even floated the "Super Precedence" garbage during the Roberts hearing.

You do realize the USSC has ruled against what is stated in the Constituion before.

Yes I do, and time will tell with this issue also. I remove my feelings about abortion when considering this, and I don't see it as a violation of state's rights, sorry. I do understand your points, I just don't feel there is a problem.

 

[MethodMan]

Yes I do, and time will tell with this issue also. I remove my feelings about abortion when considering this, and I don't see it as a violation of state's rights, sorry. I do understand your points, I just don't feel there is a problem.

And there are the same kind of feelings about the Kelo decision last year too.

 

[Vermithrax]

Vermithrax, I think that you take it too far. I don't like the current government. No one does. Bush isn't a true conservative. As far as the "fight against science," that is pushing it. I am not against science: I am against unethical science and I am against science beigh taught improperly (teaching scientific theory as fact=schools suck). Women's rights aren't under attack, unless you are talking about the right to murder their unborn babies. There is no anti-homosexual legislation.

You've got it all wrong. "Christian desire for armageddon in the middle east being fulfilled?" Dude, we have nukes. If our desires in the Middle East weren't humane we'd use them.

Well, you answered as many Christians would, especially conservative ones, which means I'm right.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Well, you answered as many Christians would, especially conservative ones, which means I'm right.

hmmm... now how can I say this... LOL? ROTFL? HAHA? "That's a laugh"? To be perfectly honest, this is the lamest response I've gotten on this forum yet. It's sad. My little brother is one of the only people I know who, in discussion, says "which mean I'm right" or "which makes me right." But really, he's pretty much grown out of it.

 

[TooCurious]

I, as a Democrat, certainly acknowledge that the States have important rights, and that many aspects of government fall within their purview. I just don't happen to believe that among the rights of the States is the right to deny any civil liberties to individuals or minority groups.