Is The U.s. Turning Libertarian?

[JMHX]

One need only listen to Glenn Beck to hear rampant calls of Socialism and Communism and Secret Muslim Racism. I've been considering these one-sided, idiotic rants, and find them lacking. Sure, health care reform isn't the most free market thing in the world. I'll give you that. And financial reform may be a bit on the statist side. Conceded.

But America is turning Libertarian in a number of surprising ways, and the federal government is spurring those changes along. Without even knowing it, the financial crisis is turning the country more Libertarian than it has been in a long time.

1. Gambling. As some of you might know, under President Bush - better known as Jesus Christ to the conservative group - the United States made online gambling a federal crime. No good for those of us who enjoy personal freedom to do what we want with our money. But now, due to the awful financial straits the federal government finds itself in, and conscious of the fact that online gambling doesn't kill anyone, they are now moving to re-legalize online poker. Hooray capitalism!

2. Drugs. Oh, wonderful drugs, who doesn't enjoy them on a slow evening? The biggest news isn't that California seems poised to legalize marijuana - though that's a major victory for personal freedom. The bigger news is that prison sentences for crack and cocaine are going down. Couple this with legalization of medical marijuana in D.C., and the move to stop life sentences for nonviolent drug crime in California, and we see a boost in personal freedom coupled with cost savings for the states that have to fill prisons with nonviolent drug offenders.

3. Public services. They just got a bit more private, as city governments lose their money left and right and can no longer afford to provide a wide array of inefficient public services. One American town, so fraught with budgetary concerns, chose to outsource ALL public services! The end result? Not much changed. The city still gets police and water and trash pickup, but it's a little cheaper and it's creating more jobs.

4. Guns. My fair city now allows me to own a handgun. Other states are removing their gun restrictions thanks to the Supreme Court, and the profits from gun sales are going up. The end result? More fun at the shooting range or out hunting, more money for local businesses that sell weapons and range services, and no major orgasm of crime within the city limits.

I'm enjoying the slow trend into fiscally-mandated Libertarianism. You should, too. Though politicians of all stripes may whine about the loss of control caused by these devolutions of power to citizens, they needn't worry. Unless, that is, they're expecting us to forget the years of being treated like children when we step up to the ballot box.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

If america was turning Libertarian we would have that KOOK Ron Paul in office than Obama.

[JMHX]

At 7/30/10 08:15 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: If america was turning Libertarian we would have that KOOK Ron Paul in office than Obama.

You're a tool, now sit down over there.

[Gorgonof]

It seems to me many so called "libertarians" are neo-cons in disguise.

Ron Paul seems like he may make a decent leader, but I don't like his stance on abortion, and I'm undecided if he would actually help lower the cost of health care to a reasonable level.

[RydiaLockheart]

At 7/30/10 09:02 PM, Gorgonof wrote: Ron Paul seems like he may make a decent leader, but I don't like his stance on abortion, and I'm undecided if he would actually help lower the cost of health care to a reasonable level.

Then there's the whole taxes thing. Ron Paul doesn't understand that some of us like driving on paved roads.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

We already were, now the shackles have come off (sorta)

[Memorize]

At 7/30/10 09:02 PM, Gorgonof wrote:

Ron Paul seems like he may make a decent leader, but I don't like his stance on abortion, and I'm undecided if he would actually help lower the cost of health care to a reasonable level.

How is it that when the Federal Government forcibly legalizes abortion, regardless of what the state or people of the state wish: It's "Freedom"

But when someone like Ron Paul says "Leave it up to each state and people. If people don't like it where they are, they can move", it's "OMG! Freedoms are going down the drain!"

Hey, I have an idea. How about we go the other route which is to just have the Federal Government (more specifically a group of 9 individuals with no medical background), just illegalize abortion EVERYWHERE!

After all, if people say that I'm doing something "unconstitutional" or "taking freedoms away", I could just say "Right to LIFE, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness!" I'm extending "Right to LIFE", therefore it's MORE freedom! AH-HA!

[Stoicish]

Doubtful. The US is in a Great Recession and we are losing money. Therefor anything seen as immoral can be put back in if it gets in revenue.

Take, for example, Prohibition. Seriously, if it weren't for the Great Depression Prohibition would have lasted a lot longer than necessary. People, the government, interest groups would have found some reason to keep the ban on alcohol alive.

However, the US government realized that they could get revenue on the taxes on alcohol purchases so therefor Prohibition was lifted. Like, no shit, money was the only reason and not all this crime war and whatnot.

Funny how that works, huh?

[Stoicish]

At 7/30/10 11:39 PM, Memorize wrote:
How is it that when the Federal Government forcibly legalizes abortion, regardless of what the state or people of the state wish: It's "Freedom"

Because the abortion issue is a moral issue and one I consider to be not very important. However, people will put it on the top of their list. "Freedom" is such an abstract observation and excuse that people can make on one side just as saying that its "Murder" for the other. There is no clear cut way you can define it nor is their a clear cut decision on where life begins. People debate forever on it, but its not simple when you are standing on one side saying its wrong. When there is another side saying it's okay.

Can you justify the ban of abortion for rape? Incest? Damaged child? Mothers Paternal Health? A lot of the people on the pro-life side have zero tolerance for any abortion. Does that make it anymore right especially when they truly believe that it is in God's hands.

Also, you need to realize that women ARE going to have abortions and it's been happening since the 5th century. To deny them the ability is just going to cause them to find other methods that are dangerous.

You can never safely legislate morality. Keep that in mind.

But when someone like Ron Paul says "Leave it up to each state and people. If people don't like it where they are, they can move", it's "OMG! Freedoms are going down the drain!"

They did, then Roe v. Wade happened and now it no longer doesn't. Cause', ya know, that's how the US system works.

The last bit I'm trying to figure out what you are being sarcastic about...

[Camarohusky]

At 7/30/10 11:39 PM, Memorize wrote: How is it that when the Federal Government forcibly legalizes abortion, regardless of what the state or people of the state wish: It's "Freedom"

But when someone like Ron Paul says "Leave it up to each state and people. If people don't like it where they are, they can move", it's "OMG! Freedoms are going down the drain!"

Ah yes, cause the freedom for the local governments is more important than freedom fo the people. If the Federal government had not struck down slavery, or segregation and left that freedom to the states, our society would actually be less free.

Priorities, Memzy, priorities.

[Scarface]

I like the way things are going so far. The economy is slowly picking up, we're going to pull troops out of Iraq soon, and we have a democratic president and (unless I'm mistaken) a democratic congress. If it weren't for Global Warming or the BP Oil Spill, I'd be content!

[Stoicish]

At 7/31/10 11:46 AM, Scarface wrote: I like the way things are going so far. The economy is slowly picking up, we're going to pull troops out of Iraq soon, and we have a democratic president and (unless I'm mistaken) a democratic congress. If it weren't for Global Warming or the BP Oil Spill, I'd be content!

Newt Gingrich plans on running for president and he wants to attack Iran AND North Korea.

Cause, ya know, a four front war in no way is going to impact the United States in such a way that we collapse.

[riemannSum]

At 7/30/10 11:57 PM, Stoicish wrote: Doubtful. The US is in a Great Recession and we are losing money. Therefor anything seen as immoral can be put back in if it gets in revenue.

We are not in a great recession fool.

Take, for example, Prohibition. Seriously, if it weren't for the Great Depression Prohibition would have lasted a lot longer than necessary. People, the government, interest groups would have found some reason to keep the ban on alcohol alive.

It would have been gone anyway due to the increase in criminal activity, the underground market for it, and other various reasons but your point is... semi-valid.

However, the US government realized that they could get revenue on the taxes on alcohol purchases so therefor Prohibition was lifted. Like, no shit, money was the only reason and not all this crime war and whatnot.

Funny how that works, huh?

Ok, now you're completely wrong. Money wasn't the only reason at all:

"John D. Rockefeller Jr., a lifelong nondrinker who had contributed much money to the Prohibitionist Anti-Saloon League, eventually announced his support for repeal because of the widespread problems he believed Prohibition had caused. Influential leaders, such as the du Pont brothers, led the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, whose name clearly asserted its intentions."

From the wiki on the repeal of prohibition.

At 7/31/10 12:13 AM, Stoicish wrote:
Because the abortion issue is a moral issue and one I consider to be not very important. However, people will put it on the top of their list. "Freedom" is such an abstract observation and excuse that people can make on one side just as saying that its "Murder" for the other. There is no clear cut way you can define it nor is their a clear cut decision on where life begins. People debate forever on it, but its not simple when you are standing on one side saying its wrong. When there is another side saying it's okay.

Holy shit, not only did you completely ignore the part you quoted but you actually detailed your belief on why abortion is ambiguous. Amazing.

Can you justify the ban of abortion for rape? Incest? Damaged child? Mothers Paternal Health? A lot of the people on the pro-life side have zero tolerance for any abortion. Does that make it anymore right especially when they truly believe that it is in God's hands.

Yes, you can. If your religious or personal belief is that the unborn child is more 'valuable' (spiritually or morally) than the mother (paternal health part) then yeah, you can ban it.

And what does rape or incest have to do with killing the baby? Why does the baby die because it's a product of rape or incest?

Also, you need to realize that women ARE going to have abortions and it's been happening since the 5th century. To deny them the ability is just going to cause them to find other methods that are dangerous.

Wait you're telling me that if abortion is banned all those women who would do it the safe way would turn to coat hangers and getting punched in the stomach? Give me a break, 99% of them will just carry the baby and most likely put it up for adoption.

You can never safely legislate morality. Keep that in mind.

Uhh... Yes you can! Unjustified murder is an immoral act and it's illegal and I don't see that changing in the future. At all. Ever.

They did, then Roe v. Wade happened and now it no longer doesn't. Cause', ya know, that's how the US system works.

Makes no sense.

At 7/31/10 11:46 AM, Scarface wrote: I like the way things are going so far. The economy is slowly picking up, we're going to pull troops out of Iraq soon, and we have a democratic president and (unless I'm mistaken) a democratic congress. If it weren't for Global Warming or the BP Oil Spill, I'd be content!

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a7b55d0a-9bd2-
11df-9ebd-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss

Whatever.

At 7/31/10 12:37 PM, Stoicish wrote:
Newt Gingrich plans on running for president and he wants to attack Iran AND North Korea.

Cause, ya know, a four front war in no way is going to impact the United States in such a way that we collapse.

Ok, how do you see any way of two more wars causing the U.S. to collapse? These two we're in now have had very little impact (much less detrimental) on the U.S.

Also you've taken Gingrich's platform out of context - those two wars are basically an extension of the wars we're in now in order to actually WIN those wars and solve the problem.

FYI - I'm pro-abortion

[Christopherr]

It isn't so much libertarian as it is old-school Republican. Remember, the small-government, lower spending Republicans have been dead since Goldwater.

[Memorize]

At 7/31/10 12:38 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Ah yes, cause the freedom for the local governments is more important than freedom fo the people. If the Federal government had not struck down slavery, or segregation and left that freedom to the states, our society would actually be less free.

Priorities, Memzy, priorities.

1) The Federal Government endorsed slavery
2) The Federal Government endorsed Segregation
3) The Federal Government made it illegal for women to vote
4) The Federal Government segregated the military... twice
5) The Federal Government segregated the post office
6) The Federal Government instituted the draft.
7) The Federal Government made owning Gold illegal and forced people to give it to the Government
8) The Federal Government illegalized marijuana (the whole war on drugs in general).
9) The Federal Government made it a crime to speak against the Government.
10) The Federal Government put people in prison for speaking out against war.
11) The Federal Government put people in to concentration camps because of their race
12) The Federal Government (Supreme Court) said slaves and descendants of slaves were property, not people (which is kind of ironic that this is just like the Roe v Wade decision, only applying it to a different state of individual).

When a state refused to comply with the Fugitive Slave Act, it was the Federal Government that demanded they must.

So... with that being said: Where are your priorities?

You're using the Federal Government to force your ideals on people in the name of Freedom (Which is really no different from Europe forcing "freedom" by banning burqa's or the United States spreading 'democracy').

Which any pro-life individual could also do by illegalizing abortion everywhere and claiming they're spreading the freedom of "life and individual liberty".

Granted at least they can actually point to something such as the Declaration of Independence to justify themselves, no matter how ridiculous their argument would be.

[Gorgonof]

There's no good reasons to prohibit abortion and there's negative consequences if you do, and I thought it was a no-brainer abortion needs to be legal everywhere....

[Memorize]

At 7/31/10 04:58 PM, Gorgonof wrote: There's no good reasons to prohibit abortion and there's negative consequences if you do, and I thought it was a no-brainer abortion needs to be legal everywhere....

There's no good reason for the Federal Government to make decisions outside the Constitution that dictates people's behaviors when it's best achieved at a local level as everyone's circumstances are different...

I thought it was a no-brainer.

[SmilezRoyale]

Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a pragmatic response to a situation made hopeless by decades of statism. What state governments are doing now is the latter. Secondly, we are talking mainly about state and local governments, which in terms of relative power have been shrinking due to simply becoming shills for the federal government. Also note that with the exception of a few loonies such as myself, most libertarians don't gripe that much about state and local governments, or at least their gripes are disproportionately toward the federal government.

Yes, State and local governments are tightening their belts and allowing some levels of freer markets because they, like the average American household, do not have easy access to a printing press and therefore must rely upon more rational responses to their flagrant mishandling of tax dollars. But this phenomenon is more than compensated by the increase in the size of the federal unit.

It's funny though, any time someone advocates slashing the federal budget the statists most immediate defense is to bait and switch and claim that the minarchist wants to abolish programs that are not only acceptable under a minarchist framework, but in large part are not provided primarilly by the federal government. (Though these days the distinction between the feds and the state governments is being made ever more hazy by the feds buying off state governments with mandates and grants) It's as stupid as saying that NASA's budget shouldn't be cut because we won't be able to do any more climate change research or something to that effect.

"I hate federal taxes as much as the next guy but we need somebody to build the roads and pay for public education" - Derp

[Gorgonof]

At 7/31/10 05:15 PM, Memorize wrote: There's no good reason for the Federal Government to make decisions outside the Constitution that dictates people's behaviors when it's best achieved at a local level as everyone's circumstances are different...

I thought it was a no-brainer.

Could you name me one at least one case where forbidding abortion has benefited a society?

[Memorize]

At 7/31/10 05:45 PM, Gorgonof wrote:

Could you name me one at least one case where forbidding abortion has benefited a society?

Could you name me where it's legal for the Federal Government to be involved in abortion and drugs?

[SmilezRoyale]

At 7/31/10 05:45 PM, Gorgonof wrote:

At 7/31/10 05:15 PM, Memorize wrote: There's no good reason for the Federal Government to make decisions outside the Constitution that dictates people's behaviors when it's best achieved at a local level as everyone's circumstances are different...

I thought it was a no-brainer.

Could you name me one at least one case where forbidding abortion has benefited a society?

The idea of having multiple, SOMEWHAT competitive agencies, isn't necessarily that a particular issue, say, abortion, is better off being handled one way in one area or another, it's that you are more likely to see socially beneficial government policy evolve because the governmental units are SOMEWHAT in competition with each other, in contrast with national states where there is virtually no competition short of the fear of a revolution or a massed exodus.

What this means is that you have a greater number of chances for these agencies to DISCOVER which laws are most beneficial, also it is systematically easier to get good laws passed and bad laws removed for the simple reason that smaller populations are easier to mobilize politically.

For example, Gay marriage, if handled on a local level, solves two important problems. Number one, national gay marriage legislation is more likely to encounter resistance, whereas if a single state or a single county of relatively like-minded people made their own rules regarding gay marriage, they would not have to worry about people in another area of the country stopping them.

And if a state passes a bad law, say, a drug prohibition law (You might be pro-drug war, and if that is the case, just think of a BAD law that you know cannot work and insert it here), it is FAR easier for citizens to leave that state or to pressure their own state legislatures to end the law because the citizens are closer to the state legislature. Also, because state and local governments have more restricted budgets, they are not given as much freedom with wasting lives and money in the way that the national drug war has.

In the case of Abortion, think about it this way. A liberal state or a liberal county PROBABLY would have been able to legalize abortions BEFORE roe v. wade, more conservative areas wouldn't have cared as much as if it was done on a national level because for all intensive purposes it would effect them significantly less. This has an enormous benefit of reducing the risk of social conflict between Americans on a national level.

And once the benefits of a positive law or the problems created by a bad one are revealed, it is far more easier for this knowledge to spread to the other competing political units which are more likely to change accordingly.

I'm not advocating this as the most optimal system of governance per-say, and as an Anti-statist i have reasons to believe this sort of system, like the 'limited constitutional government' of yore, is only attainable in the short run and not for a long period of time, BUT i do think it would be a considerable theoretical improvement. That being said, my reasons for thinking this would not be attainable in the long run are not arguments in favor of unitary statism, I simply believe that all states tend towards collusion, consolidation, and a centralization of power.

[Camarohusky]

At 7/31/10 04:39 PM, Memorize wrote: When a state refused to comply with the Fugitive Slave Act, it was the Federal Government that demanded they must.

Nobody said the Fed was perfect, but neither are the states.

So... with that being said: Where are your priorities?

My priorities lie with whatever power will grant us the most personal freedoms. While the Federal government had a nasty early track record, it's recent decisions have been much more inviting of personal freedoms than the states have been.

Granted at least they can actually point to something such as the Declaration of Independence to justify themselves, no matter how ridiculous their argument would be.

What about the 14th Amendment?

[Stoicish]

At 7/31/10 05:59 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/31/10 05:45 PM, Gorgonof wrote:

Could you name me one at least one case where forbidding abortion has benefited a society?

Could you name me where it's legal for the Federal Government to be involved in abortion and drugs?

...

When it became a law?

While I don't agree with drugs I honestly don't believe in the massive enforcement on drugs at the moment.

Also, in terms of abortion (and I wasn't even sure if you were making a case for it or not) there are so many pro-life and pro-choice groups that it sickening. The Supreme Court hoped to find the best middle ground they could during Roe v Wade, but sadly to no avail.

Here's why I have a problem with you saying that it should be up to the states. See, that WAS the system we lived in before Roe v Wade. The states made the mandate for abortion at the time before the famous case. The woman did not think that she could handle being a single mother so she decided to lie about getting raped which was the only reason you could get one in Texas. She got in trouble for it and it compounded to the Supreme Court.

Because if you TELL someone if they can or cannot have a baby you are essentially telling them how too run their lives and not only that but you are having Christian interest group come in and tell those people in the US how to run their lives when it's quite apparent that we are (supposed to be) a melting pot of different individuals. Meaning that my belief can be vastly different from yours. See you are making a backwards logic argument saying that it's okay to let the states mandate something when its going to be quite apparent that they are going to outlaw it in many Conservative leaning states.

Meaning, this restricts freedoms from people who might actually LIKE living in that state or in the hometown that they grew up in. "Just get up and move" is a bullshit argument just as much as saying, "If you don't like the US then leave it". To me it seems ridiculous for someone to actually have to fly their sad ass to another state, spending more money than necessary, to get an abortion when that's what the state was fighting to prevent in the first place. It defeats the purpose because, just like drugs, no matter how you try to legislate it PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO!

Also, to the person who flat out said it was murder, that viewpoint is one of no wiggle room. You said it WAS murder rather than, "My opinion is that this is murder". Meaning, to me as a moderate, you suck dick because I hate absolutes like that.

And by the fucking way, in case anyone was wondering, I'm Pro-Life. Yeah, haha, I really do believe that abortion is wrong.

But what I believe also doesn't matter in what is supposedly a nation that loves liberty. I understand that there is a law now and I have to understand, look at the facts (i.e. it's going to happen anyway and its more dangerous to the woman who gets it by unhealthy means) and just say that I can't help it so I have to tolerate it.

We gotta stop living in such fucking absolutes. Sheesh.

[Stoicish]

And Memorize I actually quoted the wrong person. My bad.

[Memorize]

At 7/31/10 11:13 PM, Stoicish wrote:

When it became a law?

So if Congress passed a law that makes it illegal to criticize a politician... then it's legal?

Since when are laws passed at the whims of Congress considered higher priority than the Constitution that those same lawmakers are sworn to uphold?

Also, in terms of abortion (and I wasn't even sure if you were making a case for it or not) there are so many pro-life and pro-choice groups that it sickening. The Supreme Court hoped to find the best middle ground they could during Roe v Wade, but sadly to no avail.

The same supreme court that has no medical background?
The same supreme court that says you can't grow marijuana in your own yard for your own consumption, and is INTER-state commerce?
The same supreme court that said slaves and descendants of slaves were property?

The woman did not think that she could handle being a single mother so she decided to lie about getting raped which was the only reason you could get one in Texas. She got in trouble for it and it compounded to the Supreme Court.

You do realize that that VERY SAME woman is a pro-life advocate today... right?

Norma Leah McCorvey

Because if you TELL someone if they can or cannot have a baby you are essentially telling them how too run their lives and not only that but you are having Christian interest group come in and tell those people in the US how to run their lives when it's quite apparent that we are (supposed to be) a melting pot of different individuals.

This argument doesn't amount to anything considering we tell what people can and can't do A LOT.

Meaning, this restricts freedoms from people who might actually LIKE living in that state or in the hometown that they grew up in.

Tough shit.

Hey, I can make the same bullshit argument when it comes to property taxes!

"Why can't I live in my home state and pay lower taxes? This impedes my right to my own money!"

Besides... why do you make the assumption that they would have to move? They could just travel to that state; get the abortion, then go back.

"Just get up and move" is a bullshit argument just as much as saying, "If you don't like the US then leave it".

No, it's not.

If my family of 5 could move to the next state (out West, since those states are so much bigger than the east), after making only $15,000 for the year after the recession... then you don't get to bitch about not being able to move.

So quit your whining.

Also, to the person who flat out said it was murder, that viewpoint is one of no wiggle room. You said it WAS murder rather than, "My opinion is that this is murder". Meaning, to me as a moderate, you suck dick because I hate absolutes like that.

It is, biologically.

If the entire pro-choice premise of "it's her body" is completely scientifically false, then why shouldn't it be considered murder to those people?

After all, if it were "her body", the fetus would be the same genetic individual as the mother, wouldn't it? But it's not.

[Camarohusky]

At 8/1/10 12:44 AM, Memorize wrote: The same supreme court that has no medical background?

I never knew the right to privacy was a medical issue.

The same supreme court that says you can't grow marijuana in your own yard for your own consumption, and is INTER-state commerce?

The black market drug trade IS interstate commerce, and the government is seeking to regulate the interstate commerce of drug trading away. The act of growing for one's ow consumption in the aggregate ends up having a large impact on Interstate commerce. Even under the current Lopez view of the Commerce Clause, this idea stands up.

The same supreme court that said slaves and descendants of slaves were property?

That court should defer to the same states that decided slavery was a great idea? And the states who said segregation was a good idea? And the states that said open discrimination in business was a good idea?

No US governmet is free of its dark points. The combination we have now is specifically tailored so that when these fuck ups happen they are fixed. Congress overruled Dred Scott. the Court itself overruled Plessy v. Ferguson. To say one state should have less ability to protect freedom than another because of a dark history is foolish and counter productive.

[Memorize]

At 8/1/10 01:22 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

I never knew the right to privacy was a medical issue.

Trimesters.

But sure.

Hide behind the "privacy" argument.

lol, if you can even call it one.

The black market drug trade IS interstate commerce, and the government is seeking to regulate the interstate commerce of drug trading away. The act of growing for one's ow consumption in the aggregate ends up having a large impact on Interstate commerce. Even under the current Lopez view of the Commerce Clause, this idea stands up.

So... if I grow a marijuana plant on my own property, then consume it (on my own property), then it counts as interstate commerce?

Lol, now I know how you arrived at the "privacy" excuse.

That court should defer to the same states that decided slavery was a great idea?

Do you know when the Missouri compromise occurred and what it replaced?
Do you know why the Constitution says slaves count as 3/5 of a person?
Do you know what law congress passed in terms of slavery and what eventually replaced/repealed it?

And the states who said segregation was a good idea?

Did you know women could vote in numerous states before during after the constitution? And that the reason why women couldn't later vote was because the anti-federalists didn't like which party they were primarily voting for?

And the states that said open discrimination in business was a good idea?

Oh, you mean those same businesses who were only segregating because the Government forced them to while the Federal Government endorsed it while IGNORING the constitution?

Did you know that Congress has been exempting themselves from the 1964 civil rights act for decades?

[Memorize]

At 8/1/10 03:00 AM, Memorize wrote:

Did you know women could vote in numerous states before during after the constitution? And that the reason why women couldn't later vote was because the anti-federalists didn't like which party they were primarily voting for?

Correction: Federalist

[Stoicish]

At 8/1/10 12:44 AM, Memorize wrote:
So if Congress passed a law that makes it illegal to criticize a politician... then it's legal?

Since when are laws passed at the whims of Congress considered higher priority than the Constitution that those same lawmakers are sworn to uphold?

Yeah, but where in the Constitution does it talk about the abortion issue? There are a lot of things the Constitution doesn't talk about that you may imply that it does, but there is not flat answer like you are trying to make it out as.

The same supreme court that has no medical background?

Yup, but they sure as hell listen to professionals just like any district or local court case, don't they? Like, I dunno, during Roe v Wade where medical professionals talked about it. Hur hur.

The same supreme court that says you can't grow marijuana in your own yard for your own consumption, and is INTER-state commerce?

Backhanded argument bringing something in that has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about and has whole different implications than the abortion issue.

The same supreme court that said slaves and descendants of slaves were property?

See above and I don't want to get into the mess as to why this doesn't exactly matter unless you just think the Supreme Court is useless in which case fuck it its not worth arguing with you about.

You do realize that that VERY SAME woman is a pro-life advocate today... right?

Norma Leah McCorvey

Other people have argued that she was manipulated by those pro-life and Christian advocacy groups, but sure, just cause she had a change in heart that completely invalidates something as major as this.

This argument doesn't amount to anything considering we tell what people can and can't do A LOT.

Meaning, this restricts freedoms from people who might actually LIKE living in that state or in the hometown that they grew up in.

Tough shit.

Hey, I can make the same bullshit argument when it comes to property taxes!

"Why can't I live in my home state and pay lower taxes? This impedes my right to my own money!"

Besides... why do you make the assumption that they would have to move? They could just travel to that state; get the abortion, then go back.

I already made the argument that it would cost more money for them than doing it locally and if its a person already living in a close to poverty string then they'll probably take care of it themselves.

Also, "Tough shit' is a callus and unthinking argument in your world of absolutes.

No, it's not.

If my family of 5 could move to the next state (out West, since those states are so much bigger than the east), after making only $15,000 for the year after the recession... then you don't get to bitch about not being able to move.

So quit your whining.

Wow and your families situation has to do with this...how? I don't pretend to know about your situation but I guess unlike your family people actually grow up and love the states that they live in. When something as big as this affects their lives as a whole you put them in a rough situation where you say, "Tough shit, get out then." You are essentially ruining the lives of the minority in favor of those who do like it. See, only the people who agree with us can stay is what you are saying.

It is, biologically.

Yeah, but if I get a vaccine I'm essentially killing some of my white blood cells. Does that mean I'm committing murder? Hoo boy that argument has so many holes I don't know what to say.

If the entire pro-choice premise of "it's her body" is completely scientifically false, then why shouldn't it be considered murder to those people?

I didn't say it wasn't. I was just saying that there are differing opinions.

When did I make the "her body" argument anyway? You are taking average arguments from pro-choice people and forcing it into this one. I'm just saying that you cannot force people to do something regardless of your belief because they will do it anyway.

[Memorize]

At 8/1/10 04:36 AM, Stoicish wrote:

Yeah, but where in the Constitution does it talk about the abortion issue? There are a lot of things the Constitution doesn't talk about that you may imply that it does, but there is not flat answer like you are trying to make it out as.

"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"

Guess what that applies to?

Drugs. Abortion. State taxes...

You do realize that this idea of having the Federal Government control all of which isn't written in our "sacred law" defeats the very concept of limited Government, right?

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State"

Backhanded argument bringing something in that has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about and has whole different implications than the abortion issue.

Yes it does.

In terms of the law, drugs and abortion are in the very same boat.

See above and I don't want to get into the mess as to why this doesn't exactly matter unless you just think the Supreme Court is useless in which case fuck it its not worth arguing with you about.

Ironic that you would say that, as if you suddenly care about delegated powers.

Other people have argued that she was manipulated by those pro-life and Christian advocacy groups, but sure, just cause she had a change in heart that completely invalidates something as major as this.

Haha, it's funny how even when the hero of the abortion crowed switches that they suddenly don't matter.

I already made the argument that it would cost more money for them than doing it locally and if its a person already living in a close to poverty string then they'll probably take care of it themselves.

You do realize $16k for a family of 5 IS poverty... right?

So as I said, you can't make this bullshit argument with someone whose family was in poverty.

Wow and your families situation has to do with this...how?

Meaning they could actually move the entire family across state lines to start "a new life".

They didn't wait around demanded politicians solve their problem, all the while whining about how they "can't do anything".

I don't pretend to know about your situation but I guess unlike your family people actually grow up and love the states that they live in.

I have a word for people who wish to continue living in poverty conditions just because they like that state: Stupid.

My father grew up around the world, sometimes not even having enough money for something as simple as fast food.

His favorite place to life was Honduras, but I haven't seen him ever complain about not living there and how other people's tax dollars need to help him out.

When something as big as this affects their lives as a whole you put them in a rough situation where you say, "Tough shit, get out then." You are essentially ruining the lives of the minority in favor of those who do like it. See, only the people who agree with us can stay is what you are saying.

Wow, would you look at this.

Someone who suddenly cares about people wanting to live in a state they would like.

You didn't seem to give a rat's ass about that a moment ago.

Does that mean I'm committing murder? Hoo boy that argument has so many holes I don't know what to say.

Do I really have to explain how on a genetic level, that makes absolutely no sense?

I didn't say it wasn't. I was just saying that there are differing opinions.

Just because someone says "My opinion is that John McCain won the election" doesn't make their opinion right.

It makes their opinion retarded.

When did I make the "her body" argument anyway? You are taking average arguments from pro-choice people and forcing it into this one. I'm just saying that you cannot force people to do something regardless of your belief because they will do it anyway.

Exactly.

So why are you so in favor of allowing the Supreme Court to do that.