Is this the year of the Libertarian Party?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So...what is an example of a strictly states-rights issue? That's what those opposed to central government can never seem to articulate.

Here is an example. In Arizona, it is illegal to drive a car into a river. Do you know why? In Louisiana, it is NOT illegal. In fact, that would be seriously life-prohibitive.

Let's let the federal government decide and give us ALL a blanket rule, shall we?

 

[g5000]

Lovers of strong central government never can. You lack the education.

So...what is an example of a strictly states-rights issue? That's what those opposed to central government can never seem to articulate.

Guns. Abortion. Health care. Speed limits. Recreational drugs. Voting. Roads. Anything not enumerated as federal powers.

Next!

 

[The Derp]

So are you for eliminating state government and handling everything at the federal level?

I think largely, yes.

I think we have to be realistic about the society we live in; it's a society that is interconnected by technology and commerce, and one that transcends state borders in a digital space. My typical Amazon order is the best example of that:

Amazon is based in Washington.
PayPal is based in California.
UPS is based in Georgia.

So if you're a customer in, say, New Hampshire...then a typical Amazon order for you involves four different states. That kind of interstate commerce isn't something the founders had ever thought of in the 18th century. Back then, states competed against one another for commerce...today, they don't. Today, interstate commerce is the standard, and intrastate commerce is the rarity. That wasn't the case in the 18th century...so our society has changed. We need to change our thinking to keep up with the technological advances.

 

[The Derp]

States rights mean we know on the local level what is better for us than a central government thousands of miles away which is owned by special interests.

Oh yeah, in what regard, specifically? What examples? Do you get a different kind of breast cancer in Alaska than you do in Florida?

So **** you.

Don't drive angry.

 

[g5000]

Making a treaty with a foreign power? That's federal.

Deciding whether prostitution is legal? That's local.

Setting up a national postal system? That's federal.

Deciding whether or not voting stations are open for 7 days or 14? That's local.

See how easy this is?

 

[g5000]

States rights mean we know on the local level what is better for us than a central government thousands of miles away which is owned by special interests.

Oh yeah, in what regard, specifically? What examples? Do you get a different kind of breast cancer in Alaska than you do in Florida?

What the **** does government have to do with breast cancer?

 

[The Derp]

Look, if you hate the constitution, just say so. Don't beat around the bush.

So you can't even think or speak intelligently on this, instead you try to make this an emotional argument. Probably because you have so many emotions, you don't know what to do with them.

So do you apply 18th century thinking to your life, or is it only to government and only on anonymous internet message boards?

What would you do if your 10th Amendment was invoked and the state in which you lived suddenly decided that its within their powers to limit your access to the USMB? What on earth would you do then!?

 

[g5000]

Do you want to allocate tax dollars to help women with breast cancer? That's local.

See how easy this is?

 

[g5000]

Liberals think it should be decided thousands of miles away whether or not to spend your tax dollars to give free puppies to hookers.

"Do you have a different kind of hooker in Alaska than you do in Florida?"

 

[g5000]

Appeal to emotion. Bring out the cancer lady to justify a federal takeover of health care. Then waste hundreds of billions on free puppies for hookers, using the cancer lady as a human shield.

 

[The Derp]

This Act shall supersede and preempt the application of any State or local law that prohibits or regulates gaming or the operation of bucket shopsThis is what is called a "federal pre-emption". The federal government seized power from the states and nulled state laws which prohibit bucket shops and which regulate casinos.This federal pre-emption is a direct cause of the economic crash which followed.

What crash?! No. The CFMA didn't cause the economic collapse of 2007, nearly 8 years later. What caused that were Bush's regulators ceasing the enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004 and extending into 2007.

THAT is why we need to take power back from the federal government.

No, THAT is why we shouldn't elect people who are in the pockets of Wall Street (and that gets to public campaign finance). Do you not think that the wealthy can purchase state legislators to enact their will? Take a gander at North Carolina and tell me if you think your 10th Amendment is all it's cracked up to be. North Carolina was ranked below oppressive regimes like Iran and Syria when it comes to basic voting representation and rights. In fact, in the just released EIP report, North Carolina’s overall electoral integrity score of 58/100 for the 2016 election places it alongside authoritarian states and pseudo-democracies like Cuba, Indonesia and Sierra Leone. If it were a nation state, North Carolina would rank right in the middle of the global league table – a deeply flawed, partly free democracy that is only slightly ahead of the failed democracies that constitute much of the developing world.

So diluting federal authority doesn't suddenly produce freedumb, it produces states like NC, where one guy (Art Pope) controls the entire state legislature through his campaign funding. That's better than a strong central authority, how?

Ask yourself, The Derp. Why does a bank need exemptions from state gaming laws for casinos? Why does a bank need to be exempted from laws prohibiting bucket shops?

Well ask yourself; how did the banks manage to even get that level of deregulation? By spending tons of money lobbying and funding the campaigns of politicians. So here is a perfect example of why public campaign finance would be better than the current system; because the current system allowed banks to spend millions donating to campaigns and lobbying officials to get these regulations passed. You're impugning the entire institution because of the actions of some bad actors...actions you don't want to mitigate at all because you oppose public campaign financing...and I'm guessing you also oppose private campaign donations...so then what the **** do you support? Do you not think we should have elections at all? Seems like you're just being contrarian. You screech about the undue influence of special interests crafting legislation to benefit them, but then you oppose any limitation of that system. So what the **** dude?

This type of legislation led to the outright fraud we saw leading up to the crash.

Legislation that was passed by politicians who receive campaign donations and are lobbied by the banks who wanted this passed. And public campaign finance would not solve that, why?

Where were all the States Rights advocates screaming about this blatant federal pre-emption of state laws? Why was Fox News not ranting about this?Might it have something to do with the fact it was put in there by a Republican at the behest of Wall Street?Things that make you go hmmmmm...

"A Republican at the behest of Wall Street" < - Which means what? That Republican decided to simply do that just for the sake of doing it? Or because he was lobbied to do it through campaign donations and fundraising? So you're yipping about a law that was only passed because of lobbying and campaign donations, but you oppose public campaign financing which would eliminate lobbying and campaign donations, which is the reason that deregulation happened in the first place.

So how are you not perpetuating the very thing you complain about?

 

[g5000]

This Act shall supersede and preempt the application of any State or local law that prohibits or regulates gaming or the operation of bucket shopsThis is what is called a "federal pre-emption". The federal government seized power from the states and nulled state laws which prohibit bucket shops and which regulate casinos.This federal pre-emption is a direct cause of the economic crash which followed.

What crash?! No. The CFMA didn't cause the economic collapse of 2007, nearly 8 years later. What caused that were Bush's regulators ceasing the enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004 and extending into 2007.

It is universally understood the CFMA was a huge contributor to the crash. The CFMA was what prevented the regulation of derivatives, fool.

READ IT!

The crash was exponentially amplified by derivatives. If it was just too many subprime loans, the crash would not have been nearly as bad.

In fact, it was derivatives which allowed so many subprime loans to be made in the first place!

 

[The Derp]

Yes. That's why we formed a Union to provide for the common defense and to promote commerce among the states. The founders are way ahead of you on that. What you are saying is that ALL problems are too big, which is bullshit to 'nth degree.

No, to promote the general welfare.

Why do you leave that part out? How come you have to cherry pick the Constitution?

 

[The Derp]

What you are saying is that ALL problems are too big, which is bullshit to 'nth degree.

Then by all means, what is an example of a states-only problem or issue that doesn't end up affecting other states?

 

[g5000]

Ask yourself, The Derp. Why does a bank need exemptions from state gaming laws for casinos? Why does a bank need to be exempted from laws prohibiting bucket shops?

Well ask yourself; how did the banks manage to even get that level of deregulation?

Because we gave the federal government that kind of power. We allowed the federal government to steamroll right over state laws regulating the banks.

On behalf of "Wall Street".

 

[The Derp]

Health care is better solved at the state level.

How so? Is the flu different in Michigan than Idaho? Are people in Maine more susceptible to prostate cancer than people in Utah? Do stitches for a cut on your arm in Pennsylvania not work when someone in Alabama gets the same cut on their arm?

Come on. Your states' rights issue is bullshit. Just like it was bullshit 155 years ago when the "states rights" issue was slavery of human beings.

"States Rights" is code for "I want to discriminate, but lack the authority to do so". It's lazy. You're better than that.

ust look at what a colossal fuckup the federal government has made of health care. How's that been working out for you?

It's not the federal government ******* up health care, it's insurance companies who each face 50 different state-based regulations. So you point to health care, but doing so helps make my case for me:

Health insurance is regulated differently in every state, and because every state regulates it differently, there's little-to-no competition among insurers and in the states where out-of-state insurers can sell policies (My state of GA is one of those), they find that very few insurers do because those insurers would have to conform to GA's insurance laws, which are different than any other state.

SMH.

 

[g5000]

Ask yourself, The Derp. Why does a bank need exemptions from state gaming laws for casinos? Why does a bank need to be exempted from laws prohibiting bucket shops?

Well ask yourself; how did the banks manage to even get that level of deregulation? By spending tons of money lobbying and funding the campaigns of politicians.

If we did not seize state power and give it to the federal government, then no money would have been spent capturing that power.

That's my whole point, dumbass. When you centralize power, you make it easier to capture!

Take away the power, you take away the incentive to buy it. Problem solved!

 

[The Derp]

f Louisiana wants to put in place a 30-day waiting period on abortion, should it be allowed?Now, if New York wants to put a 30-day waiting period on the purchase of any firearm, should it be allowed?

It's up to the courts to decide the constitutionality of that.

Are you going to be an inconsistent hypocrite, like you have been proved to be, or are you going to finally get the point?

You just don't know how our government works, and you're taking those frustrations out on me.

 

[g5000]

Health care is better solved at the state level.

How so? Is the flu different in Michigan than Idaho?

You seem really stuck on this logical fallacy.

 

[The Derp]

The Derp wants someone thousands of miles away deciding what food you should eat, what health care you should receive, how fast you should drive, how many guns you can own.

THAT ALREADY HAPPENS IF YOU LIVE IN A BIG STATE LIKE CA, AK, or TX.

SMH.

He literally wants someone thousands of miles away making life and death decisions for you because he believes you are incapable of doing that for yourselves.Madness. Sheer madness.

THAT ALREADY HAPPENS IF YOU ARE ON MEDICARE.