An honest question for conservatives

[Quantum Windbag]

How are you defining 'a government'. We have a Constitution that outlines the role of federal government. Anything else should be left to the states.

So about this war on drugs that is a huge thing for the right, with states trumped by the feds. Or maybe trying to criminalize abortion?

Face it, the right is frequently supportive of things the federal government can do that is not at all mentioned in the constitution.

Yep, no Democrat supports the war on drugs, which is why Obama is leaving people alone in the states that have medical marijuana laws.

Obama Explains Increasing Medical Marijuana Crackdowns, Raids In 'Rolling Stone' Interview

Oops.

This is why you are a hack, and always will be, you pretend one side is better than the other because otherwise you will think you wasted your entire life. Guess what, it doesn't change anything, you wasted your entire life.

 

[ba1614]

It's been said many times in this thread, and shouldn't need to be said again, but progressives are so fuckin' thick skulled it can't be said enough.

The Federal government should do what the constitution gives them the power to, NOTHING MORE.
Note: that means what the constitution says, not some progressive interpretation of what it says.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So about this war on drugs that is a huge thing for the right, with states trumped by the feds.

{LOS ANGELES - A pair of prominent San Francicso medical marijuana businesses closed their doors Tuesday, a sign of the federal government's recent crackdown on medical cannabis dispensaries. }

Calif. medical-marijuana dispensaries close as Feds crack down | 9news.com

These ran unharassed all through the Bush years, but once the leftists got in, the attack began.

See Cowshit, it's not that you're a liar, it's that you're fucking stupid, which is why you're a leftist.

 

[Darkwind]

"...our rights come from nature and God, not from government."

Wrong.

Rights come from us, human beings. We created the concept, we define it.

Wrong.

 

[eflatminor]

How are you defining 'a government'. We have a Constitution that outlines the role of federal government. Anything else should be left to the states.

So about this war on drugs that is a huge thing for the right, with states trumped by the feds. Or maybe trying to criminalize abortion?

Face it, the right is frequently supportive of things the federal government can do that is not at all mentioned in the constitution.

Actually Cow, the number of federal raids on dispensaries increased dramatically after Obama got into office and the Dems controlled both houses.

Just another example of central planners outlawing consensual activity between adults.

 

[GoneBezerk]

the Federal Govt's role is to create the states with a military, have a Federal courts system for legal standardization on certain issues, regulate commerce to prevent economic wars between states, etc.....it doesn't have a role in giving welfare handouts to people in WA by taking tax money from people in NC.

The state and local Govt roles are to maintain the police, firemen, education, etc to ensure functional cities/communities without chaos.

Building roads and bridges for the overal infrastructure are a combo of Feds and state govts working together to help society maintain economics progress and mobility. We don't want the roads in MS to be so dangerous that a truck carrying goods from GA to CA can't travel through MS due to dangerous roads.

The ultimate Govt role is just to help build the foundation for society and then get out of the way if people are obeying the law. Don't step in and say Bill needs some of Bob's money because Bill is too poor and Bob is too rich. Or Jill needs free healthcare, etc because she had 7 kids by age 30 and can't work now.

This isn't a sports event where the govt gets to pick winners and losers, their job is to play referee for when some cheat and break laws. Call a foul on cheaters in life, but don't rig the game for the loser to tie it or score more points....

First, this is not trolling. I am an admitted liberal but I enjoy hearing different points of view so I can better understand what other people see or think. That's why this is an honest question: I want to understand the conservative viewpoint.

What role(s) should a government play in our lives?

With so many conservatives decrying taxation and government regulation, what should (if anything) governments do? Are there any tasks that should belong to the government rather than a private business? Assuming the government collects something in taxes, what should those tax dollars be spent on?

Again, I promise this is an honest question and I'm not setting folks up with a pre-planned, "airtight" counter-argument.

 

[California Girl]

How are you defining 'a government'. We have a Constitution that outlines the role of federal government. Anything else should be left to the states.

So about this war on drugs that is a huge thing for the right, with states trumped by the feds. Or maybe trying to criminalize abortion?

Face it, the right is frequently supportive of things the federal government can do that is not at all mentioned in the constitution.

The 'war on drugs' (terminally stupid phrase) should be left to individual states.

Abortion... I'm personally pro-life, but I support the status quo of Roe v Wade. Shocker! I believe that abortion is a personal social issue and not one that is remitted to the federal government. I often get shit from the right wingers for that but, Constitutionally, the status quo is sound.

How inconvenient for you... you pick a fight with an intelligent, rational, unemotional conservative. Good luck with that.

 

[there4eyeM]

"...our rights come from nature and God, not from government."

Wrong.

Rights come from us, human beings. We created the concept, we define it.

Wrong.

Has no idea where words and concepts come from.

 

[there4eyeM]

a tree has the inherent right to live and grow otherwise it would die....or never even come into being....

are you saying a human has less right than a tree......? that his right to life must depend upon the decision of another human being....?

This indicates a very strange understanding of the word 'right'. Capacity would be closer to what you are saying.

Only humans have rights, so of course a human cannot have fewer rights.

Actually, you are the one with the strange concept of rights.

If rights are defined by humans then animals that fight for life, must, by your definition, be human. The simple fact is that nature illustrates each and every day that rights are not something we invented. There are rights that we do define, such as the right to vote, which is why it is contingent on a predefined condition of law. Natural rights, however, are ours simply because we exist.

Thanks for the laugh.

Now, back to how things work:
Rights exist because we think and because we think we create words and, thus, reality. OK, don't believe me. Go ask linguists ans psychiatrists.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Has no idea where words and concepts come from.

I explained this to you in detail yesterday, and you ignored it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This indicates a very strange understanding of the word 'right'. Capacity would be closer to what you are saying.

Only humans have rights, so of course a human cannot have fewer rights.

Actually, you are the one with the strange concept of rights.

If rights are defined by humans then animals that fight for life, must, by your definition, be human. The simple fact is that nature illustrates each and every day that rights are not something we invented. There are rights that we do define, such as the right to vote, which is why it is contingent on a predefined condition of law. Natural rights, however, are ours simply because we exist.

Thanks for the laugh.

Now, back to how things work:
Rights exist because we think and because we think we create words and, thus, reality. OK, don't believe me. Go ask linguists ans psychiatrists.

I posted a study that shows that primates understand the concept of right and wrong, and actually have the same concept for it that we do. If you know anything about language, you will understand that two separate species evolving the same linguistic concepts is all but impossible unless there is an external source for those concepts.

Please, keep pretending you understand science well enough to debate me on the subject.

 

[there4eyeM]

Actually, you are the one with the strange concept of rights.

If rights are defined by humans then animals that fight for life, must, by your definition, be human. The simple fact is that nature illustrates each and every day that rights are not something we invented. There are rights that we do define, such as the right to vote, which is why it is contingent on a predefined condition of law. Natural rights, however, are ours simply because we exist.

Thanks for the laugh.

Now, back to how things work:
Rights exist because we think and because we think we create words and, thus, reality. OK, don't believe me. Go ask linguists ans psychiatrists.

I posted a study that shows that primates understand the concept of right and wrong, and actually have the same concept for it that we do. If you know anything about language, you will understand that two separate species evolving the same linguistic concepts is all but impossible unless there is an external source for those concepts.

Please, keep pretending you understand science well enough to debate me on the subject.

What does this have to do with 'rights'? The fact or not that humans and animals share some kinds of responses is irrelevant to the definition and source of the human abstract concepts. You guys have some fundamental confusion about the internal world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thanks for the laugh.

Now, back to how things work:
Rights exist because we think and because we think we create words and, thus, reality. OK, don't believe me. Go ask linguists ans psychiatrists.

I posted a study that shows that primates understand the concept of right and wrong, and actually have the same concept for it that we do. If you know anything about language, you will understand that two separate species evolving the same linguistic concepts is all but impossible unless there is an external source for those concepts.

Please, keep pretending you understand science well enough to debate me on the subject.

What does this have to do with 'rights'? The fact or not that humans and animals share some kinds of responses is irrelevant to the definition and source of the human abstract concepts. You guys have some fundamental confusion about the internal world.

The fact that primates understand the concept of rights is somehow irrelevant to a discussion where you attempt to argue that science proves that rights is an entirely human concept? Want to try to run that one by me again, my bullshit detector got so loud I couldn't follow your logic.

 

[Cowman]

It's been said many times in this thread, and shouldn't need to be said again, but progressives are so fuckin' thick skulled it can't be said enough.

The Federal government should do what the constitution gives them the power to, NOTHING MORE.
Note: that means what the constitution says, not some progressive interpretation of what it says.

So about this war on drugs that is a huge thing for the right, with states trumped by the feds.

{LOS ANGELES - A pair of prominent San Francicso medical marijuana businesses closed their doors Tuesday, a sign of the federal government's recent crackdown on medical cannabis dispensaries. }

Calif. medical-marijuana dispensaries close as Feds crack down | 9news.com

These ran unharassed all through the Bush years, but once the leftists got in, the attack began.

See Cowshit, it's not that you're a liar, it's that you're fucking stupid, which is why you're a leftist.

Thanks for proving my point for me gentlemen. I didn't even have to do anything. Obama's actions on drug crackdowns are definitely in conservative territory. I don't agree with government overreach like that. But... conservatives basically built the war on drugs and they fueled it for so many years. It's an institution now.

Thanks for that, fuckers!

 

[Cowman]

How are you defining 'a government'. We have a Constitution that outlines the role of federal government. Anything else should be left to the states.

So about this war on drugs that is a huge thing for the right, with states trumped by the feds. Or maybe trying to criminalize abortion?

Face it, the right is frequently supportive of things the federal government can do that is not at all mentioned in the constitution.

Actually Cow, the number of federal raids on dispensaries increased dramatically after Obama got into office and the Dems controlled both houses.

Just another example of central planners outlawing consensual activity between adults.

Changes not at all what I said... that the war on drugs is a huge thing for the conservatives. They are and have historically been big proponents of the drug wars.

To deny that is to be ignorant of history. Obama participating in it as well(which I sure as hell am angry he is) doesn't change that fact at all.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thanks for proving my point for me gentlemen. I didn't even have to do anything. Obama's actions on drug crackdowns are definitely in conservative territory. I don't agree with government overreach like that. But... conservatives basically built the war on drugs and they fueled it for so many years. It's an institution now.

Thanks fuckers!

Yeah, because Obama is a conservative....

Say stupid fuck, if conservatives "fueled the war of drugs," why were there no raids during the Bush years?

Hmmmm?

 

[GoneBezerk]

So dumbfuck....you believe each state should have their own DEA???? What happens when a truck full of drugs travels from Texas to California? I didn't realize the Texas Rangers or your new Texas DEA can just drive through New Mexico to stop drugs in Arizona.

So what happens to the ATF and DEA when each state is told to go stop drugs and weapons entering their states through illegals and gangs?

You see dumbfuck, the US Federal Govt is responsible for guarding our borders and working across different states at the same time on operations. Billy Bob the policeman in El Paso Texas has no authority to chase drug dealers into New Mexico.

You are an idiot on border control issues and foreign policy it seems.

How are you defining 'a government'. We have a Constitution that outlines the role of federal government. Anything else should be left to the states.

So about this war on drugs that is a huge thing for the right, with states trumped by the feds. Or maybe trying to criminalize abortion?

Face it, the right is frequently supportive of things the federal government can do that is not at all mentioned in the constitution.

The 'war on drugs' (terminally stupid phrase) should be left to individual states.

Abortion... I'm personally pro-life, but I support the status quo of Roe v Wade. Shocker! I believe that abortion is a personal social issue and not one that is remitted to the federal government. I often get shit from the right wingers for that but, Constitutionally, the status quo is sound.

How inconvenient for you... you pick a fight with an intelligent, rational, unemotional conservative. Good luck with that.

 

[Cowman]

Thanks for proving my point for me gentlemen. I didn't even have to do anything. Obama's actions on drug crackdowns are definitely in conservative territory. I don't agree with government overreach like that. But... conservatives basically built the war on drugs and they fueled it for so many years. It's an institution now.

Thanks fuckers!

Yeah, because Obama is a conservative....

Say stupid fuck, if conservatives "fueled the war of drugs," why were there no raids during the Bush years?

Hmmmm?

So Bush was against the drug wars then. Right?

And his Daddy? And Reagan? And Nixon?

My point is some of the biggest backers for the war on drugs have been republican presidents. Bush Sr, Reagan and Nixon especially.

Or were you conservatives all of the hippies? Pro drugs and free love and all that shit?

Does your Obama delusion change your knowledge of US history?

Look, I get that Obama has been a shitty ass ally, and even an opponent in ending the war on drugs industrial complex that we have in this country. That's why I view him as very conservative in that regard, because his stupid ass has been following in the footsteps of all the republican presidents prior on that issue.

 

[Peach]

How are you defining 'a government'. We have a Constitution that outlines the role of federal government. Anything else should be left to the states.

A Constitution SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT, read it sometime.

 

[eflatminor]

So about this war on drugs that is a huge thing for the right, with states trumped by the feds. Or maybe trying to criminalize abortion?

Face it, the right is frequently supportive of things the federal government can do that is not at all mentioned in the constitution.

Actually Cow, the number of federal raids on dispensaries increased dramatically after Obama got into office and the Dems controlled both houses.

Just another example of central planners outlawing consensual activity between adults.

Changes not at all what I said... that the war on drugs is a huge thing for the conservatives. They are and have historically been big proponents of the drug wars.

To deny that is to be ignorant of history. Obama participating in it as well(which I sure as hell am angry he is) doesn't change that fact at all.

Well, if you say so...

We'll just overlook the fact that the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act was passed in 1934 under a Democrat President and with Democrats holding a majority in both houses.