Thank You Big Brother,May I Have Another? 40,000 New Laws Passed 2011...

[theDoctorisIn]

These are all state laws.

What happened to "state's rights"?

 

[paulitician]

These are all state laws.

What happened to "state's rights"?

Different issue.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

These are all state laws.

What happened to "state's rights"?

Different issue.

How so?

Everyone in this thread seems to keep posting that "Ron Paul" is the only one who can clean this up - which implies that you want Ron Paul, as President, to overrule state laws.

How is that a "different issue" than "state's rights"?

 

[paulitician]

These are all state laws.

What happened to "state's rights"?

Different issue.

How so?

Everyone in this thread seems to keep posting that "Ron Paul" is the only one who can clean this up - which implies that you want Ron Paul, as President, to overrule state laws.

How is that a "different issue" than "state's rights"?

Apples & Oranges. Big Government is Big Government. 'States Rights' is a different issue.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Different issue.

How so?

Everyone in this thread seems to keep posting that "Ron Paul" is the only one who can clean this up - which implies that you want Ron Paul, as President, to overrule state laws.

How is that a "different issue" than "state's rights"?

Apples & Oranges. Big Government is Big Government. 'States Rights' is a different issue.

How is a state's right to pass whatever laws it wants NOT "state's rights"?

Just repeating "it's a different issue" isn't enough. You have to explain why you think it's a different issue.

 

[Flopper]

Yes,thank you very much Big Brother. Because we definitely don't have enough Laws already.


New Laws For 2012: The Good, The Bad, The Stupid

Come this Sunday a fresh batch of new laws for 2012 go into effect all across America. Some states and municipalities have really outdone themselves. In 2011, the Associated Press reports that some 40,000 new laws were voted on or devised by some regulatory panels according to the National Conference of State Legislators. How can Law and Order be served which this much being added to the nation′s law books? Bad enough we are subject to them, but who among us knows each and every law? Are we over regulating ourselves into oblivion? Let us take a look at some of the new laws for 2012.

California is always a good place to start when it comes to looking at new laws that are ridiculous. One new provision reported by CNN requires that schools teach the contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender to America. While that should take about two minutes to do, in California whole new textbooks, courses and the like will be prepared and distributed at taxpayers expense. Another new law adds gender identity and gender expression to California′s list of equal rights. Terms like Mr., or Mrs. may be phased out or other terms added reflecting the other options that some people seem to think exist.

More:
New Laws for 2012 – The Good, The Bad, The Stupid » Right Pundits

Those laws didn't come from the 112th congress. This congress set a record for being one of the least productive congresses.

 

[paulitician]

How so?

Everyone in this thread seems to keep posting that "Ron Paul" is the only one who can clean this up - which implies that you want Ron Paul, as President, to overrule state laws.

How is that a "different issue" than "state's rights"?

Apples & Oranges. Big Government is Big Government. 'States Rights' is a different issue.

How is a state's right to pass whatever laws it wants NOT "state's rights"?

Just repeating "it's a different issue" isn't enough. You have to explain why you think it's a different issue.

They should obviously have the right to pass an excessive amount of Laws but that doesn't mean they have to. Like i said,Big Government is Big Government. Anyway,no time to get into it right now. Gotta get out and ring in the New Year. Take care and Happy New Year.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Apples & Oranges. Big Government is Big Government. 'States Rights' is a different issue.

How is a state's right to pass whatever laws it wants NOT "state's rights"?

Just repeating "it's a different issue" isn't enough. You have to explain why you think it's a different issue.

They should obviously have the right to pass an excessive amount of Laws but that doesn't mean they have to. Like i said,Big Government is Big Government. Anyway,no time to get into it right now. Gotta get out and ring in the New Year. Take care and Happy New Year.

Cheers! You too.

 

[rdean]

These are all state laws.

What happened to "state's rights"?

Different issue.

Not really. I've been sitting here for the last hour looking at some of these "new laws" and the vast majority are from the states. Everything to new abortion laws to immigration. All the new "voter ID" laws. New "E-verify" to check citizenship. South Carolina has a whole slew of immigration laws as well as Tennessee. A bunch of states are taking control of "school lunches". Guess so they can push "catsup" as a vegetable (gee, I wonder who did that?). Probably the most in some states are ones on abortion. All kinds of laws about clinic, where they can be, how they are run, what licenses they need for doing what.
Lot of new laws about state employees paying more for everything from health care to pensions and all kinds of new rules.

A whole bunch of states have taken away powers from tax collectors so they can't force corporations to redo tax returns if the agent thinks they dodged paying.

My favorite is in Utah where they banned "Happy Hour".

This is hilarious. From the complaints of right wingers, I thought these were all Obama. Turns out it's all those Republicans they voted into office in 2010.

AHH HA HA HA HA.

WHAT DO THEY CALL THAT?

HOIST ON YOUR OWN PETARD???

FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[The T]

These are all state laws.

What happened to "state's rights"?

Different issue.

Not really. I've been sitting here for the last hour looking at some of these "new laws" and the vast majority are from the states. Everything to new abortion laws to immigration. All the new "voter ID" laws. New "E-verify" to check citizenship. South Carolina has a whole slew of immigration laws as well as Tennessee. A bunch of states are taking control of "school lunches". Guess so they can push "catsup" as a vegetable (gee, I wonder who did that?). Probably the most in some states are ones on abortion. All kinds of laws about clinic, where they can be, how they are run, what licenses they need for doing what.
Lot of new laws about state employees paying more for everything from health care to pensions and all kinds of new rules.

A whole bunch of states have taken away powers from tax collectors so they can't force corporations to redo tax returns if the agent thinks they dodged paying.

My favorite is in Utah where they banned "Happy Hour".

This is hilarious. From the complaints of right wingers, I thought these were all Obama. Turns out it's all those Republicans they voted into office in 2010.

AHH HA HA HA HA.

WHAT DO THEY CALL THAT?

HOIST ON YOUR OWN PETARD???

FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Point missed.

 

[rdean]

Different issue.

Not really. I've been sitting here for the last hour looking at some of these "new laws" and the vast majority are from the states. Everything to new abortion laws to immigration. All the new "voter ID" laws. New "E-verify" to check citizenship. South Carolina has a whole slew of immigration laws as well as Tennessee. A bunch of states are taking control of "school lunches". Guess so they can push "catsup" as a vegetable (gee, I wonder who did that?). Probably the most in some states are ones on abortion. All kinds of laws about clinic, where they can be, how they are run, what licenses they need for doing what.
Lot of new laws about state employees paying more for everything from health care to pensions and all kinds of new rules.

A whole bunch of states have taken away powers from tax collectors so they can't force corporations to redo tax returns if the agent thinks they dodged paying.

My favorite is in Utah where they banned "Happy Hour".

This is hilarious. From the complaints of right wingers, I thought these were all Obama. Turns out it's all those Republicans they voted into office in 2010.

AHH HA HA HA HA.

WHAT DO THEY CALL THAT?

HOIST ON YOUR OWN PETARD???

FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Point missed.

What's the point? 40,000 isn't enough? You want to see a lot more? Wait till Republicans control the government again. The only people who won't see new rules, laws and regulations are corporations. Clearly. Because, as we all know, "Corporations are people my friend".

 

[Londoner]

Bad news. With the GOP likely to win in 2012, the problem is going to get much worse.

Let me explain - and back up a bit. Both parties are tied to the War on Terrorism, and both parties are tied to the Pentagon system, whose budget is deeply tied to "external threats". And both parties are committed to the largest government bureaucracy ever created: Homeland Security. And - therefore - both parties are committed to the expansion of surveillance and the curtailment of the legal rights which protect citizens from government.

Both parties want more Laws that give the Federal Government power to intervene in the lives of citizens - especially citizens who disagree with government policies.

But - make no mistake - the GOP is much more committed to the Patriot Act and Homeland Security, both of which were developed by Bush, and both of which vastly increased the size and power of Big Government. [Of course, since FOX news and Talk Radio don't discuss the ways the GOP grows government, most folks on this board know nothing about it. When their party leaders tell them to be afraid of a petty middle eastern tyrant with no power, Republican voters rush to the store to buy flag pins. They obey dear lead. They have always trusted what Big Government says -whereas the Left turned on LBJ and government in the 60's. The Right would NEVER turn on one of its presidents prior to his lame duck status. They are very obedient to their government leaders]

If someone besides Ron Paul gets the GOP nomination, the Republican Party is going to crank up the War on Terror . . . and they're going to make it easier for Homeland Security & the intelligence agencies to watch and collect information on American citizens, especially ones who oppose government policy. There is a growing - but very silent - group on the Right who wants biometric ID cards (so all citizens can be tightly tied to a Big Government database). Biometric ID cards will allow the Government to electronically track free, law abiding citizens. The politicians and law enforcement coalitions in favor of this are waiting for one more homeland attack. Republicans have always favored security over freedom - as for me: I value freedom first, and - unlike the Republicans - I don't think big government is capable of delivering total safety (-I don't like it when Big Government tries to improve or save the world because they always make things worse. That is the problem with centralized power: it tries to control things that it cannot control). I accept that in a free society there is an infinitesimal but real chance that I am in danger when I fly, and that I am in danger when I go in a tall skyscraper - or simply that I am in danger because life is not perfect and Government cannot make life totally safe and perfect. Life includes risk. Republicans, on the other end, tend to live in more fear than the rest of us - and so they tend to give Government more power to protect us. This is why FOX News got away with Color Coded Terror Alerts (which it dutifully got from the Bush administration). Republicans need more protective re-assurance from Big Brother; they need government to do more for them, like get rid of evil-doers and change the way 1.1 billion Muslims live. [Talk about a job too big for government. Why does the Right trust government so much?] Republicans want Big Government to provide them with amniotic, womb-like safety. For several decades, Republican administrations have used National Security to scare the serfs into the voting booth. Just wait until Romney or Gingrich gets in office. The War on Terrorism will magically appear - and Washington will once again be called upon to watch all Americans more carefully . . . in order to "protect us".

"Hello, I'm from the government and I'm here to protect you"

Meaning: if the GOP takes the White House, we are going to see the Patriot Act on steroids. Big Government will be given vast new powers to watch, detain, and imprison Americans. The Roberts Court has consistently sided with police power and the power of intelligence agencies over privacy and freedom. In ruling after ruling, the Roberts Court has made it easier for government to watch and collect information on Americans - from phone calls, to bank transactions, to internet traffic, to phone calls - the Rightwing likes to use fear to watch us all more carefully.

The GOP has always favored a much, much bigger and more invasive government. Reagan's War on Drugs - an expensive failure - gave the Feds MASSIVE amounts of power over the states. Bush's War on Terrorism and Homeland Security does the same.

God Help us because the GOP is coming back in 2012 and it likely won't be Ron Paul, the only man on the right who doesn't want to give Washington more power.

 

[rdean]

Bad news. With the GOP likely to win in 2012, the problem is going to get much worse.

Let me explain - and back up a bit. Both parties are tied to the War on Terrorism, and both parties are tied to the Pentagon system, whose budget is deeply tied to "external threats". And both parties are committed to the largest government bureaucracy ever created: Homeland Security. And - therefore - both parties are committed to the expansion of surveillance and the curtailment of the legal rights which protect citizens from government.

Both parties want more Laws that give the Federal Government power to intervene in the lives of citizens - especially citizens who disagree with government policies.

But - make no mistake - the GOP is much more committed to the Patriot Act and Homeland Security, both of which were developed by Bush, and both of which vastly increased the size and power of Big Government. [Of course, since this was not on FOX news or Talk Radio, most folks on this board no nothing about it]

If someone besides Ron Paul gets the GOP nomination, the Republican Party is going to crank up the War on Terror . . . and they're going to make it easier for Homeland Security & the intelligence agencies to watch and collect information on American citizens, especially ones who oppose government policy. There is a growing - but very silent - group on the Right who wants biometric ID cards, which will allow the Government to electronically track free, law abiding citizens. The politicians and law enforcement coalitions in favor of this are waiting for one more homeland attack. Republicans have always favored security over freedom - as for me: I value freedom first, and - unlike the Republicans - I don't think big government is capable of delivering total safety (-I don't like it when Big Government tries to improve or save the world because they always make things worse. That is the problem with centralized power: it tries to control things that it cannot control). I accept that in a free society there is an infinitesimal but real chance that I am in danger when I fly, and in danger when I go in a tall skyscraper - or simply in danger. Life includes risk. Republicans, on the other end, tend to live in more fear than the rest of us; this is why FOX News got away with Color Coded Terror Alerts: because Republicans need more re-assurance from Big Brother; they need government to do more for them, like get rid of evil-doers and change the way 1.1 billion Muslims live. [Talk about a job too big for government. Why does the Right trust government so much?] Republicans want Big Government to provide them with amniotic, womb-like safety. For several decades, Republican administrations have used National Security to scare the serfs into the voting booth. Just wait until Romney or Gingrich gets in office. The War on Terrorism will magically appear - and Washington will once again be called upon to watch all Americans more carefully . . . in order to "protect us".

"Hello, I'm from the government and I'm here to protect you"

Meaning: if the GOP takes the White House, we are going to see the Patriot Act on steroids. Big Government will be given vast new powers to watch, detain, and imprison Americans. The Roberts Court has consistently sided with police power and the power of intelligence agencies over privacy and freedom. In ruling after ruling, the Roberts Court has made it easier for government to watch and collect information on Americans - from phone calls, to bank transactions, to internet traffic, to phone calls - the Rightwing likes to use fear to watch us all more carefully.

The GOP has always favored a much, much bigger and more invasive government. Reagan's War on Drugs - an expensive failure - gave the Feds MASSIVE amounts of power over the states. Bush's War on Terrorism and Homeland Security does the same.

God Help us because the GOP is coming back in 2012 and it likely won't be Ron Paul, the only man on the right who doesn't want to give Washington more power.

The entire Ron Paul thing is such an illusion. His newsletters tell us about the "real" Ron Paul. Remember a couple of years ago when his son was saying he didn't have a problem getting rid of discrimination laws because business owners should be allowed to sell to who they wanted to?
Look at what Republicans have done since they won big in 2010. All the protests and recalls. The gutting of education. The threat to "Women's rights". What if states pass laws that gays can't live with a half mile of public schools? Or you need to be married to teach?
Ron Paul would leave seniors living out of cardboard boxes.
He has no realistic policies on business. Isolation is the worst foreign policy. Of course, to Republicans, who don't believe in "compromise", there is only Isolation or building up other nations and war. Nothing in between.
The nation who leads in birth defects per 1000 people is China. Their country is a cesspool. Republicans say a few birth defects is a small price to pay for jobs. So how many are acceptable? What if it's your kid? Is it still acceptable?
Republicans are a disaster for this country, as the last 20 years have proven without a doubt, but Ron Paul is by far the worst. Even many Republicans recognize him has much to extreme and loony.

 

[pegwinn]

This government is out of fucking control. Only Ron Paul can clean the place up...why everyone is not behind him is beyond me. How could so many Americans prefer tyranny over liberty. I will just never get it.

Ron PAUL could IF he could get a rein in on the Congress...even Obama is complaining ABOUT THAT LITTLE DETAIL...

These are State Laws. As much as I would love to bash the Congress..... And, RP won't do a thing since it isn't a federal matter.

This government is out of fucking control. Only Ron Paul can clean the place up..

See the above.

This is about Big Government at the State level which is far preferable to Big Gov at the Fed level. If you want to change them, attack the problem in the State Houses.

And it is about States rights in that these 40,000 laws were not passed by Congress.

 

[rdean]

This government is out of fucking control. Only Ron Paul can clean the place up...why everyone is not behind him is beyond me. How could so many Americans prefer tyranny over liberty. I will just never get it.

Ron PAUL could IF he could get a rein in on the Congress...even Obama is complaining ABOUT THAT LITTLE DETAIL...

These are State Laws. As much as I would love to bash the Congress..... And, RP won't do a thing since it isn't a federal matter.

This government is out of fucking control. Only Ron Paul can clean the place up..

See the above.

This is about Big Government at the State level which is far preferable to Big Gov at the Fed level. If you want to change them, attack the problem in the State Houses.

And it is about States rights in that these 40,000 laws were not passed by Congress.

Just the fact that the House won't let Obama pass anything should make it clear these laws were either at the states level, where Republicans won big, or are laws left over from Bush that haven't gone into affect, or have been mandated by the courts, which, of course, is a huge source for many of our rules and regulations.

 

[pegwinn]

The entire Ron Paul thing is such an illusion. His newsletters tell us about the "real" Ron Paul. Remember a couple of years ago when his son was saying he didn't have a problem getting rid of discrimination laws because business owners should be allowed to sell to who they wanted to?

The newsletters have been asked and answered. You may not like the answer, but you cannot prove that it was "the real Ron Paul". As to business: Yeah, you should be able to refuse to serve anyone for any reason at any time. If, as a result of such stupid business practice you go belly up, just consider it evolution in action.

Look at what Republicans have done since they won big in 2010. All the protests and recalls. The gutting of education. The threat to "Women's rights". What if states pass laws that gays can't live with a half mile of public schools? Or you need to be married to teach?
Ron Paul would leave seniors living out of cardboard boxes.

If states or the community passes a law you don't like, move. There are ghost towns everywhere that demonstrate what happens when a community fails to thrive for whatever reason. If the residents vote with their ballots, feet, or wallets; things will adjust. Again, evolution in action.

He has no realistic policies on business. Isolation is the worst foreign policy. Of course, to Republicans, who don't believe in "compromise", there is only Isolation or building up other nations and war. Nothing in between.

Personally I'd like to see a country that doesn't muck about in other countries affairs. We need to trade with everyone and crush anyone who fools with us.

 

[rdean]

The entire Ron Paul thing is such an illusion. His newsletters tell us about the "real" Ron Paul. Remember a couple of years ago when his son was saying he didn't have a problem getting rid of discrimination laws because business owners should be allowed to sell to who they wanted to?

The newsletters have been asked and answered. You may not like the answer, but you cannot prove that it was "the real Ron Paul". As to business: Yeah, you should be able to refuse to serve anyone for any reason at any time. If, as a result of such stupid business practice you go belly up, just consider it evolution in action.

Look at what Republicans have done since they won big in 2010. All the protests and recalls. The gutting of education. The threat to "Women's rights". What if states pass laws that gays can't live with a half mile of public schools? Or you need to be married to teach?
Ron Paul would leave seniors living out of cardboard boxes.

If states or the community passes a law you don't like, move. There are ghost towns everywhere that demonstrate what happens when a community fails to thrive for whatever reason. If the residents vote with their ballots, feet, or wallets; things will adjust. Again, evolution in action.

He has no realistic policies on business. Isolation is the worst foreign policy. Of course, to Republicans, who don't believe in "compromise", there is only Isolation or building up other nations and war. Nothing in between.

Personally I'd like to see a country that doesn't muck about in other countries affairs. We need to trade with everyone and crush anyone who fools with us.

If they don't share your values, then they should move? Does that bit of total ignorance even sound like the United States? It's a pity you don't know what I'm talking about. A real shame.

 

[paulitician]

Everything Big Brother does is for your own good. So quit your complaining...Or else.

 

[Flopper]

I think when the Constitution was written, the framers saw the new states as sovereign entities who shared little in common except for a hatred of British rule and a need for mutual defense. Thus, the Constitution reflected that belief. The federal government's powers were limited and the real power was with the states. In the South, slavery was a vital part of the culture and frontier life dominate the new western states. A state's right to tailor laws to meet the needs of its citizens was vital. However, with the end of civil war, the taming of the west, and the blending of cultures, the main difference between states has become climate and terrain. Government, shopping malls, retail stores, restaurants, and main streets are beginning to look much the same throughout the country. At one time political philosophy and attitudes were regional but that too is changing.

The decline in states rights was inevitable from the day it was written into the constitution. A two hundred year trend of increasing centralization of power and rising nationalism are not likely to change. Unfortunately, dealing with terrorism, drugs, global warming, social safety nets, civil rights, and the economy require a strong centralized federal government. I don't believe that either political party nor most citizens really wish to see the size and power of the federal government radically reduced.

 

[rdean]

I think when the Constitution was written, the framers saw the new states as sovereign entities who shared little in common except for a hatred of British rule and a need for mutual defense. Thus, the Constitution reflected that belief. The federal government's powers were limited and the real power was with the states. In the South, slavery was a vital part of the culture and frontier life dominate the new western states. A state's right to tailor laws to meet the needs of its citizens was vital. However, with the end of civil war, the taming of the west, and the blending of cultures, the main difference between states has become climate and terrain. Government, shopping malls, retail stores, restaurants, and main streets are beginning to look much the same throughout the country. At one time political philosophy and attitudes were regional but that too is changing.

The decline in states rights was inevitable from the day it was written into the constitution. A two hundred year trend of increasing centralization of power and rising nationalism are not likely to change. Unfortunately, dealing with terrorism, drugs, global warming, social safety nets, civil rights, and the economy require a strong centralized federal government. I don't believe that either political party nor most citizens really wish to see the size and power of the federal government radically reduced.

Many in the Republican party hate government because their party and FOX news has been terrorizing them for 20 years of the evils of our elected government made up of US citizens. If you talk to them individually, you find out their beliefs are actually quite different. I remember right after Bush was elected, some old lady was being interviewed on TV. She was asked about some Bush policy (I don't even remember what it was), but I remember her saying, "I voted for Bush. I know he said he was going to do such and such, but I didn't think he would actually do it".

That's the Republican Party. They vote for one thing, but are so surprised by what their leadership has done. I know the apology to BP was a huge shock to many Republicans. So was "let him die". As was the applause for the hundreds put to death in Texas. As soon as these things happen, they try to skip over it and forget about it.