Reminds me of this silliness last year.

Taint wrote:

Reminds me of this silliness last year.

Come on, taint, you know better than that. "States rights" is a term associated with racism the same way "Family Values" really means "I hate faggots." It's been used by racists to talk about issues of race from the 1850s through the 1960s. That's why "people of color" (especially those old enough to remember the 60s) hear that term and think to themselves "Oh, ok. We're talking about racism now." It's the same as when you hear a politician say "family values" and you know immediately they mean you.

Just browse this list, and you'll notice that a striking number of states' rights issues have been about the right to discriminate.

SilverSmythe wrote:

I can't remember the 60's and don't associate states rights to racism.  I am a strong believer in states rights because it is supposed to keep check on federal power.  States rights are being eroded and federal power is growing.  Every 50 years or so the people push back and try to restore some of that balance.  It is unfortunate that in the past this "push back" has had racial overtones, but that doesn't invalidate the principle behind states rights.

Right you are Smythe.  If allowed, the big-government liberals will attempt to paint one of the main tenents of our constitution with a racist brush.  Why? Because it's easier than arguing against the agreement between the states and the federal government that the constitution represents.

Oh yeah, and I am happy to see that you have taken time to grace our pages again old Bean.

State’s rights involve far more than bigotry both now and in the past.  Protective tariffs, which hurt the South’s export of cotton and made the import of needed manufactured goods more expensive for Southerners were a huge factor leading up to the Civil War.  The Southern states correctly interpreted the constitution to state that they had the right to leave the union and go their own way.  Lincoln didn’t give a shit about the negroes, as evidenced by his frequent statements about their inferiority and the undesirability of having them live in our society, his stated desire to prevent the Southern States from leaving the Union, and that he would do so without freeing a single slave if possible, and his plan to send the negroes back to Africa where they belong.  The Civil War was more about preventing the South from exercising their constitutional right to leave a voluntary association of states than it was about setting loose humanoid farm draft animals to become a plague on society.

States rights also involve the desire of states to regulate their own speed limits, legal drinking ages, state militia units, and agricultural production, all areas the federal government has seen fit to meddle in.  Marriage laws were always a traditional state matter, until the Feds stepped in and invalidated miscegenation laws.  Having established their right to force states to recognize marriages between humans and negro animals no matter what state the marriage occurred in, the Feds have turned around and told states they don’t have to recognize same gender marriages performed by other states or countries.  For the time being they are leaving place the laws that in some states allow fourteen year old double first cousins to get married even if all four of their parents were also double first cousins.

From a states rights perspective, it isn’t inconsistent for California to practice bigotry against gay couples and let them smoke themselves silly on legally produced and sold pot.  In both cases, California is asserting a right to regulate matters within their borders that have always had varying laws between different states.

The Stars And Bars is a symbol of regional heritage.  The South is very different from the Northeast or the Pacific Northwest, and the flag is a symbol of these cultural and historic differences.  Frankly, America would be better off if it had just let the South go its own way!

Last edited by fnord (2010-09-24 02:06:54)

I haven't watched the video, but I hope that the "Stars and Bars" being referenced in the thread is this flag:


Not this one, which is not the Stars and Bars:

phreddy wrote:

Right you are Smythe.  If allowed, the big-government liberals will attempt to paint one of the main tenents of our constitution with a racist brush.  Why? Because it's easier than arguing against the agreement between the states and the federal government that the constitution represents.

Why, Phred?  Why did you feel the need to take SilverSmythe's rather reason-able and co-herent thought, and figuratively shit all over it?

fortinbras wrote:

Wait, I thought you disliked libertarians.

Eh - He could just be a "fan" of the Tenth Amendment.  You can never really tell with those shifty, liberal, types.

But what a lot of people loose sight of is also that we live in a Federalist Republic, and states rights were also meant as a way for "experimentation" to go on at smaller levels without having to push or pull the whole country along for the ride.

If California wants to legalize weed, they can do so. In 10 or 15 years the rest of the states can look back on a rich collection of data to determine if that little experiment worked or not. How else are you going to make an informed decision for the rest of the states? Likewise with gay marriage, speed limits, age of consent, etc. You are free to move into or out of any state in question at any time and the interstate commerce clause (when not being used as a magic wand by the federal attorneys) ensures the free exchange of people and commerce. (So no blackballing "rogue" states).

I would be happy if there were 50 different laws about most things. It sure beats the heavy-handed top down approach.

GooberMcNutly wrote:

But what a lot of people lose sight of is also that we live in a Federalist Republic, and states rights were also meant as a way for "experimentation" to go on at smaller levels without having to push or pull the whole country along for the ride.

If California wants to legalize weed, they can do so. In 10 or 15 years the rest of the states can look back on a rich collection of data to determine if that little experiment worked or not. How else are you going to make an informed decision for the rest of the states? Likewise with gay marriage, speed limits, age of consent, etc. You are free to move into or out of any state in question at any time and the interstate commerce clause (when not being used as a magic wand by the federal attorneys) ensures the free exchange of people and commerce. (So no blackballing "rogue" states).

I would be happy if there were 50 different laws about most things. It sure beats the heavy-handed top down approach.

All of that is absolutely true. You're talking about states' rights as a constitutional thing. I'm saying that the phrase "states' rights" is historically a rhetorical device, separate from all the accurate stuff you're saying about federalism, used for more than a century as a racist code word. You're talking about the rights of states as specified by the US constitution. I'm talking about generations of people rallying around the goddamn phrase "states' rights" to stir up racism among the constituents.

Scotty wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

historically

This got co-opted too

http://makeready.files.wordpress.com/20 … =400&h=359

but wouldn't something that comes first be more historical?

Are you saying that the swastika is older, and therefore more historical, and therefore people don't see it as a Nazi symbol but a Jain one? What are you saying?

Scotty wrote:

I am saying that misappropriation is misappropriation.  Just because some fucknut decided to make something that was benign be a pain in the ass it doesn't mean that needs to be carried forward for-fucking-ever.

OK, you start rehabbing the swastika. When you're done washing it of its Nazi associations, I'll start work on the phrase "states' rights."

Dmtdust wrote:

Oh yeah, and I am happy to see that you have taken time to grace our pages again old Bean.

A combination of business trips and vacation.  But now I'm back and I'm savoring the collapse of the leftist Democrat socialist experiment.  Yes, it is exacerbated by the bad economy, but these policies have exposed an underlying distrust by the public of concentration of power in the federal government.  This is why it is important for states rights to be seen as a legitimate division of power and not some code word for racism. 

Ah is correct when he says it was used by southern Democrats back in the 50's and 60's in lieu of their previously overt racist language.  But we are beyond that and we are now in a battle to prevent the federal government from usurping local and state latitude in self government.  The farther we get from local control, the less influence we have over our own lives and businesses.

Dmtdust wrote:

fortinbras wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

I am far left of liberal, and find your smear tactics a little old hat Commissar Phweddski.  I support States Rights as long as they do not abrogate the rights of any of their citizens, whoever they may be.

Wait, I thought you disliked libertarians.

I come out of the political school where the idea of Libertarian was originally developed; the left leaning Libertarian which has it's roots going back to the English Revolution.  Your "version" goes back to Ann Rand, and is largely fictional like her writings....

Ryn...and without her we would have never had BioShock...

Scotty wrote:

GooberMcNutly wrote:

loose

Goddamnit, Goob.

I'll never play fast and lose with my grammar again...

phreddy wrote:

The farther we get from local control, the less influence we have over our own lives and businesses.

Phreddy: Fuck you & Well said

I need to smoke more in the mornings....

Last edited by Tall Paul (2010-09-26 20:02:07)

Tall Paul wrote:

I need to smoke more in the mornings....

I need to find a source...

I love the Tea Party!  These crazies will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in many critical races!