Weena wrote:
And the entirety of the constitution says nothing about marriage, meaning my point stands. It's reserved to the states, and there is no right to marriage...
...It might not be a good thing, but it isn't there.
Again, it is. 14th Amendment, Section 5. Also the "Necessary And Proper" and "interstate commerce" clauses of Article I, Section 8.
The literalist interpretation doesn't work. Show me the country that gets by with govt powers that limited. (And no America doesn't count because its never worked that way here either, not even during the 19th century)
Weena wrote:
But what about those states that wanted to ratify it without gunpoint?
What about them?
Weena wrote:
You asked me for things states have done that were a good cause. Since California passed more stringent green energy laws than the feds, chances are they would have passed green energy laws even if the fed had done nothing.
All that means is that their economy would be at an even greater disadvantage versus states willing to pollute their environment.
This is the ideologue's bent. The fact that a moment's thought makes it clear that the proposal would result in a thoroughly bad outcome is less important than the ideological impetus.
So what's the basis for using this as a positive study in states' rights?
The comparison is an irrelevant one anyway because the matter of contention is whether "states' rights" trump federal legislation. In your scenario, assuming no federal legislation, it's not a "states' rights" issue.
You only see it as one because propaganda on TV has tried to twist and contort the facts, arguing that the lenient federal law is exclusive against the stricter state law. States make more restrictive legislation on all sorts of things for which there are federal guidelines. Obvious examples include road speed limits, minimum wage, and workplace safety laws. So the biased argument is clearly completely baseless and wrong.
But I would ask you - why do you believe the incorrect and greed-driven argument - what influenced you?
Weena wrote:
3% unemployment, huge immigration and a large budget surplus is what ND has right now. I mean, I dunno, those poor, misguided souls making $18 starting flipping burgers at McDonalds.
What's your basis for saying that's more causally attributable to states' rights / free market policies than any number of other factors?
Weena wrote:
Quote:
Where do you get your ideas? A book, TV, what? And why is it that no one who isn't American and basically uneducated thinks this free market/libertarian/states' rights crap isn't malarkey?
I don't know why I answer any of your questions.
"Show me this."
"Ok, here."
"Nope, sorry, that doesn't cut it."
Every time.
Why? What sorts of faults do I find? Do I just say "I don't agree", or do I say, "the facts are against you, and here they are"?
I mean, honest question, what do you think should be the proper basis to agree or disagree with someone's position?
You still didn't answer the question though. Where do you get your ideas?Weena wrote:
In this instance, it doesn't matter what I say, as far as you're concerned, a state government can do nothing right or good.
Ok, is there a reason I should be convinced by your "saying so"?
Weena wrote:
To your second question, probably because everybody that thinks that way has already moved here after being sick of their current country.
Except that isn't valid either. Neither of us were born in other countries, and both many Americans who like you and I are the descendants of immigrants don't buy the libertarian nonsense. Many recent immigrants like Fanta don't buy it either.
And people come to this country for a good many reasons other than libertarian ideology, first amongst them the strong US dollar (which is itself a product of anti-libertarian programs). For my ancestors, they were simply fleeing the Great Pogrom of 1905; libertarian ideology etc had nothing to do with it.
Those who believe what you identify with are almost never immigrants; they are almost always American-born people who know little of anything.
Given your initial answer cannot be reconciled with the facts I would ask - why is that? Or if you think that my interpretation of the facts is in some way faulty, please explain how.
