Nikki Haley say only CEOs count in her state

Post Reply New Topic

I actually never said secession was just a bad idea. I still think it's unconstitutional.
And while the land use issue might piss people off, I tend to think the only mandate today that heartland conservatives are fired up over enough is regarding gay marriage. As marriage equality is inevitable, I wouldn't expect much support internationally, or from a good part of the country.

Surely you jest. You're the joker who repeatedly asserts that anybody who disagrees with your infinite wisdom must be ignorant, insane, evil, an Uncle Tom, a racist, a homophobe, or some combination thereof. It ain't exactly civil.



You are misstating the philosophy and purpose of the Constitution. It does not grant rights to anybody ? states do not have rights per se, national governments do not have rights, only individuals have rights, and no power on Earth has the authority to grant or rescind them. (This is the philosophy of the Founders, with which I am fundamentally in agreement.) The Constitution grants the federal government powers, powers which must be derived from the rights of individual citizens in order to be valid. Aside from the 'everything else' implied by the Tenth Amendment, it does not grant the states any powers at all ? since some of the states, as entities, preceded the Constitution and indeed the Union, that would be absurd. It's the various state constitutions which spell out what powers the state governments have.

Would secession or even revolution ever be legally and morally justified? Absolutely, if and when the national government becomes despotic. Is it justified now or in the near future? Not as long as we still have freedom of speech. When that goes, all bets are off.

I don't recall calling anyone on WP ignorant, an Uncle Tom, a racist, homophobe, etc. I was referring to the people who actually fit that description.

According to you, anyone who doesn't think and vote the way you do does fit that description. Black person who votes GOP? Uncle Tom, no way any conscientious minority could ever vote that way because he thought it was the better choice. Working class person voting GOP? They must be brainwashed, everyone knows that all working class people are better represented by the Democrats. Religious people? Well they're all homophobes and bigots, unless they vote Democrat of course. That is the message you've been putting out for years, and it is insulting.

Again, I've never directed that at anyone personally in WP. I can also point out that you and Raptor and your friends have been insulting from time to time.

democrats are NOT the ones trying to disenfranchise working class folks every way they can think of. democrats are NOT the ones trying to suppress minority/working class voting over much of the country. democrats are NOT the ones supporting the ruinous status quo before ACA. to say that working class people matter a damn in the machinations of right wing politics [other than as pawns to be used and abused] is itself insulting. sure, the democrats use the working class to their own ends but at least we get something useful out of it [health care, maintenance of the right to vote, et al]. to suggest that everybody should be able to rise above minimum wage neglects the woeful realities of the job market and education in this country, the former robbed of the non-high-tech middle class jobs that flew away on the four winds with the cheerful acquiescence of the reaganauts [and worthless blue dogs] and the latter which has become unaffordable to all but the scholarship recipients. masses of college graduates, fooled by our education racketeers, wasted their money and years of their youth, only to find all the jobs were gone! I am so sick of people peeing on my leg then telling me its only raining! calling voter suppression tactics [restricting voting hours, mailing out official-appearing but deceptive flyers misdirecting working class voters, restricting the number of voting stations in working class neighborhoods, et al] "the fight against voter fraud" is a disgusting Orwellian warpage of language to the worst ends. most of all I blame the working class for sitting on its collective tuckas instead of voting their own true self-interest, i.e. in the DEMOCRATIC party that does NOT want to block their vote.

I have friends here? And if I did, what would their actions have to do with anything?

More importantly, no, you don't say "you, Dox47, are a racist, bigoted homophobe", but what you do say is that libertarians are racists, that gun fetishists are all rednecks compensating for something when they're not plotting insurrection, that anyone who isn't a CEO or a white collar worker who doesn't vote Democrat is an idiot class traitor, i.e. sweeping generalization that apply to members here, including myself. It would be like me posting continuously about how stupid progressives are, that anyone who votes Democrat is a moron that doesn't understand how power works and is naively faithful that a bunch of bureaucrats will have their bests interests at heart instead of their own, but then claiming that I hadn't been insulting because I hadn't called anyone in particular stupid. You know what else I don't do? Claim to know the best interests of anyone but myself, and cast bad faith inspired aspersions on the intellect and motivation of anyone who disagrees with me, that would be insulting.

Dox-

You seem to forget when you accuse anyone who disagrees with you about gun rights as being brainwashed and parroting party lines, instead of accepting that's just what certain people believe.
You call us who genuinely like the President and think he's doing a decent enough job unthinking knuckleheads when that's just what we believe.
When have you ever taken the side of people without? I recall once asking you if you had ever criticized the tea party for denigrating the poor and disabled, and you answered with, you probably had. Well, I have absolutely no recollection of you doing any such thing, as I would have definitely remembered. Well, standing up for the underdog the most important political stance a person can take in my opinion, and I refuse to back down on that point.
I could go on and on, but I'm more interested in watching Family Guy than spending time writing something you're just going to disregard, anyhow.

The only times I've ever said anything remotely like that have been to people who clearly don't really care about the issue and don't know anything about it, but have strong opinions on it for seemingly no other reason than partisanship, e.g. you. Someone who approaches me with something like "I disagree with you, here's why" never gets a response like that, they may get a point by point rebuttal, and I won't be nice about it if they're rude, but they'll get a lot more than a dismissal; it's the people who can't actually articulate a reason for their position that I put it down to conditioning. Even then, it's not something I lead with or say particularly often, and more importantly, I do single out specific people for the criticism, I don't broad brush entire groups with uninformed projections.



Again, I rebut you point by point when you gloss over the failings of Obama or attempt to blame the GOP for things he's done on his own, such as the assassination program, the whisteblower crackdown, the deportation surge, etc, and I point out the difference in the way this behavior was treated under Bush vs Obama; that's not calling you anything, that's just making you acknowledge the facts. You keep using that word, 'believe', as if we're talking religion and not politics, I mean you're welcome to believe whatever you want, but I'm going to call BS on it if it deviates from the facts, which are what determine what I do and do not believe.

Also, I've never called anyone anything like that.



Every time I address the drug war, the drone war, abusive judicial practices, hell I can probably even claim guns if I point out that draconian gun crime statutes are overwhelmingly deployed against minorities caught up in the system. That's just off the top of my head. Oh yeah, there's that whole guaranteed minimum income thing I also support, does that count?



One, why am I responsible for criticizing the Tea Party? I'm not a member, never have been, why am I obligated in any way to answer for anything they might say or do?

Two, you don't remember things I say to you repeatedly, week to week, you're not exactly credible on matters of memory, and I don't feel like sifting through the posts, but feel free.



There's nothing wrong with standing up for the underdog, no one is saying anything otherwise, we're just bickering over how best to help, except that you won't accept that anyone who isn't doing exactly what you think is right is actually trying to help. I never for a moment doubt your good intent, it's beyond frustrating not to have that simple courtesy returned.



Seriously? You're the guy that responds to a 2,000 word meticulously sourced and argued post with a 2 line dismissal, but you're going to try and play this card? I think my line by line response speaks for itself in any case.

You're not doing yourself any favors here, you didn't respond to my criticism, instead attacking me personally to try and distract from it and draw a false moral equivalency, and you've stretched or distorted the truth nearly to the breaking point in your attempt to smear me, none of which paints you in a flattering light. Do you think this is going to "win" the argument for you? All you've done is show people that you're unable to answer an argument effectively, and will stoop to lying about someone in order to distract from your own failings, probably not what you intended.

Equal marriage rights is something I considered adding to my examples, but wonder if, as same-sex marriages show themselves not to be the strawmen that some see them as now, I suspect the idea of secession over the matter (as it has now been mentioned in Utah) will quickly become as impractical as the similar argument over interracial marriage might have been in the late 1960s. Secession is no small thing and it would be painful for any state's citizens to accomplish successfully.

As for the idea that secession is constitutional, we have but one supreme law of the land; the Constitution for the United States of America. It was created and adopted by the states, not to bind them but to freely associate themselves with a limited federal government, not the other way around. To suggest that the states voluntarily trapped themselves into perpetual bounds with that federal government or even with each other, is folly. No other treaty, law, ordinance, regulation, rule, policy or interpretation changes that. Insofar as the Consitution is mute on the matter of secession, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution is the only part of the supreme law that appears to address the matter.

You talk about the states as if they're different countries joined together in a confederation. If that had ever been the case, those days are long gone. We Americans are one people, despite state or region. For one state deciding to leave would be like one's hand deciding to separate from the rest of the body. And as we are one body, we can and should all work to fix things rather than trying to break away for whatever reason and go it alone. The fact is, we are all of one culture, mostly of one language, and we all share a common American identity.

For the most part, i was just venting last night, and not thinking and writing as literally as I would be if even headed. But I still believe you can and have been dismissive to those who disagree with you on the gun issue, just as you are selectively interested in the well being of the underdog only in terms of the war on drugs and what not. And while I never said Obama was perfect, especially on matters of deportations (which is a matter of trying to placate the right), and what not. But seriously, the matter of assassinations is more than justifiable, as we're talking about hostile combatants whose primary motivation in life is to kill us. The President after all had taken an oath to defend against enemies both foreign and domestic, which includes Islamic radicals, even if they have American citizenship. And if I sometimes come off as flippant with answering an overly long post with a few lines, well, sometimes brevity is the best answer.

At best legality of secession would be an issue for the supreme court, not that I trust them to come up with a good decision.

Why not? Because they might rule against secession?

^ That they might rule with their hearts like your boy Barack wants and not with their legal minds like they're supposed to.

you make a bit of compassion sound like a bad thing.