Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Goonerview, Apr 6, 2018.
You asked for an example and got one?
No, I asked what made you think the federal government needs to be the one to make that decision? If they had decided slavery was ok, then what?
I figured if we kept at it long enough we'd find something we agreed on. Gotta start somewhere.
I never said everyone who likes/follows Crowder is an idiot, gross generalizations like that are never good. My suspicion that many of them are is perhaps condescending but I'll stand by it.
Fair enough, I call you guys idiots loosely all the time .
I appreciate you being personable with me. We get so caught up in the argumentative nature here on the dog, we often dont talk to people as people.
Conservatives and liberals laugh at most of the same shit in the end and many would get along fine off the dog
Well state and local governments made the wrong decision. Nobody is claiming that the federal government always makes correct policy choices.
So your whole point is moot. To act like I have to support federal regulation or I support slavery is simply not true
So you support the federal regulation of the ownership of people?
I dont support federal regulation. What are you not understanding. You're trying way too hard to get me to support slavery or federal regulation. They arent mutually exclusive
In a situation where the states and local governments supported slavery as an institution, you're suggesting federal regulation is a bad thing in that case, no? How about the civil rights act? Federal overreach?
lmao here we go again Cathy Newman.... I don't support slavery. I also don't support federal regulation.
Do you support the federal regulation that abolishes slavery?
Maybe he's saying that he supports federal regulation when it is a federation of states collectively regulating themselves rather than a separate federal agency acting a tyrants role, in opposition to the states wishes.
I think the point that @FIMN is trying to make (and that @oleDirtyBast4rd is missing) is that the term "States Rights" has a contextual history in this country which makes it mean something completely different from one group to another. It is not something that universally uplifts everyone; quite the opposite as history has shown.
I don’t remember this dude ever posting.
I understand the black mark, but the federalist idea is still a good one IMO. It’s much less of a threat to individual rights than a centralized power.
It should be ok for California to be a hippie commune if they so choose and for Alabama to have a church on every corner as long as the constitution is honored. Citizens can choose what fits best for them.
If the federal government was restricted to its Intended role, I don’t see it being a problem.
It's a fair sentiment, but you can't take it in a vacuum. States Rights has been used to justify some abhorrent things in the past. Arguments against a strong federal government have been mostly hypothetical in comparison.
I will say that this administration has been a good reality check on people's values. People seem to be fine sliding into authoritarianism so long as it's one of their guys in power.
@FIMN is acting as if one must support federal regulation or you support slavery. He's trying to demonize me if I dont agree with him on federal regulation. It's disgusting and dishonest
In my view, the Fed's controlling state tax funds and using their redistribution to force compliance with Federal reg's is authoritarian. Reducing Federal regulations, not so much. JMO
Consider this though: Do you think we would be as divided politically if the states were a true federation, with the Fed doing only it's intended role, and the states governing themselves honoring the constitution? Would it really matter who was president? Who controlled congress?
I think their would be more harmony.
I have no clue how things would work in a "true federation". Care to expand? If it's what I'm imagining, I could see plenty of reasons why it would have a lot of negative trade-offs.
Separate names with a comma.