There just would not be this much violence if...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ihopehefails, Mar 23, 2010.

  1. ihopehefails

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Oct 3, 2009
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    During the Bush years there was some awful threats coming from the left and now there are some equally bad stuff coming from the right during Obama. The anger is out there but the reason for that anger is simply human nature. People don't like being controlled so when one side has control they fear the other will control them in ways that they don't want to be controlled. This fear leads to anger and anger leads to hate.

    Its natural and healthy in many way but has anyone thought that a solution to live more peacefully with ourselves is federalism itself? Each state can live by laws that they want. I know some people don't think Texas is good but they don't care since Texas, to them, is unable to decide how they are going to live. The same can be said about California. I think that is a liberal hell hole but I don't really care since I am not affected by their laws.

    This was one of the arguments made against the constitution because a national government would lead to national laws which erase local and state laws that people create. They correctly said it would lead to war and I fear that idealogical differences between the right and left are so different that its impossible for everyone to be happy under the same law.

    Are you still reading? OK. The thing that stands in the way is ourselves. Neither side wants to give up this control at the federal level in favor of local control. The right passes DOMA and the left passes healthcare reform and no side wants to give up this power which is like some character flaw in a greek tragedy because in order for us to be remain civilized we must be allowed to be free and allow others the same freedom. When we remove the freedom of one person then that same person can remove some freedom from us because we create the device aka government power that we use against others and that device then gets used against us.

    The republicans will likely slaughter the democrats in November so wouldn't you democrats like to be protected from the republicans when that happens by your own state laws?
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. uptownlivin90

    uptownlivin90 Rebelious Youngin

    Oct 16, 2009
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    I CAN agree to an extent, being that I am federalist. I'm personally all for the states handling social programs and education. I think most of those areas SHOULD be handled by individual states and should be dealt with on a local basis in some cases. States rights in those regards is something that I wholeheartedly support. That being said I think the federal government SHOULD be cut back to a few basic functions (interstate roads, foreign affairs, military/border security) and I've been an advocate of abolishing most federal taxes for a while now.

    I believe this simply because look at the mess we're in now. The federal government has proven that it cannot effectively solve problems in this nation, I mean just look at how long it took the party in power to pass "health care"? And look at how terrible the bill is. States are threatening to file suit over this bill and rightfully so, even democratic governors are saying this thing is bad for many states, and IT IS, which is why I'm a registered democrat, I've opposed it. The federal government has done almost nothing useful, it has overstepped it's boundaries time and time again, it's one big heaping failure, it throws bailout money to wall streets, and the things they SHOULD be doing like securing the borders and dealing with immigration just don't get done. PROBABLY because it's just not possible for them to handle all of the various issues that come up in such a large and diverse nation.

    So in my opinion, again, the majority of social programs and projects should go to the states, who can better handle them. One function I think when it comes to laws that the federal government does have is insure that citizens of ALL states are not victims of civil rights violations. We had a problem "back in the day" with states abusing the rights of their citizens, in this case I believe the federal government has an obligation to step in. There is a uniform code of inalienable rights that the constitution outlines brilliantly. Those rights must be protected and so I do believe in those cases we have a federal court system that is designed so that if Alabama or Michigan passes a law that violates the constitutional rights of it's citizens (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) it should be struck down by the federal court system.

    This I believe personally is the greatest function of the supreme court, to insure liberty in all the states. Now personally I'm very liberal when it comes to what I believe "rights" are. I personally believe in the right to bare arms, and the right for a woman to choose and I think both rights should be protected and any law in any state that restricts the rights of people to protect themselves should be struck down (that's just me though). The federal government's main function should be to be a defender it's citizens rights when necessary, however because it has become so overstretched and bloated... it has many times become the enemy of freedom, an example would be this drug war which has infringed on not only the rights of citizens but of states that have decriminalized many substance. IDK... just my take on all of this.

Share This Page