Remmus Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/5/2017 at 5:13 PM, stevenash said: Come on Rem- tell Tigers2010 that, in spite of what he has gone through, it is worth it because it is for the "common good "and if the government says it is good, it is and it is high time that he finally pay his "fair share". ( at least that is until "free college" makes it to the forefront again at which time his "fair share" is insufficient and he needs to pay more) Expand Blame Rick Perry too for turning down funds. Guess you may have forgot to contribute to his re-election campaign. Perry stuck to ideology and didn't think about families like Tigers2010's. Quote
Englebert Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 1:21 AM, Remmus said: Blame Rick Perry too for turning down funds. Guess you may have forgot to contribute to his re-election campaign. Perry stuck to ideology and didn't thing about families like Tigers2010's. Expand No, Perry was thinking about all of Texas' families which is why he did everything in his power not to get involved in the Obamacare debacle. Way too many strings attached to that Socialist program and the eminence of dependency on the Federal Government. Kudos to Perry on this one. Quote
Remmus Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/5/2017 at 9:58 PM, LumRaiderFan said: Show me where the fed gov provides over site for the state''s business. Use the Constitution...not your opinion. Wow...how did the states ever make it before the recently intrusive fed gov. I get it now, you are a centrist...you are all for a centrally controlled country. Expand Without the Feds the ruling party of a state can make pretty much any daggone laws they very well please at the peril of the under-represented. For instance a state or even a locale can create an ordinance that allows restaurants to refuse service to Muslims or gays for instance. Now that very well may be the will of the people of that particular state, but its not fair/right (because we are Americans) to target a particular group. We've seen this before. One of the great things about America is we can travel from state to state with the expectation of uniform rights, privileges, and protection. 60 years ago (and further back) depending on who you were it was really important to know what state you were in and the policies/beliefs/laws of those people. Some of the intrusion we complain about today was put in motion by the government being forced to police the states bad behavior. This is one reason why minorities have more love for the feds than the states when it comes to social issues. Historically the Feds provided protection. MLK had to run to Kennedy cuz Bull Conner wasn't having it. When the demographics in the country started shifting and Republicans weren't able to buy elections (they tried like heck with Romney) all this talk of states rights spawned. This is all about a power grab and leveling the playing field. Trump threw a monkey wrench in the pot and proved that Democrats can't buy elections either. Quote
stevenash Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 1:54 AM, Remmus said: Without the Feds the ruling party of a state can make pretty much any daggone laws they very well please at the peril of the under-represented. For instance a state or even a locale can create an ordinance that allows restaurants to refuse service to Muslims or gays for instance. Now that very well may be the will of the people of that particular state, but its not fair/right (because we are Americans) to target a particular group. We've seen this before. One of the great things about America is we can travel from state to state with the expectation of uniform rights, privileges, and protection. 60 years ago (and further back) depending on who you were it was really important to know what state you were in and the policies/beliefs/laws of those people. Some of the intrusion we complain about today was put in motion by the government being forced to police the states bad behavior. This is one reason why minorities have more love for the feds than the states when it comes to social issues. Historically the Feds provided protection. MLK had to run to Kennedy cuz Bull Conner wasn't having it. When the demographics in the country started shifting and Republicans weren't able to buy elections (they tried like heck with Romney) all this talk of states rights spawned. This is all about a power grab and leveling the playing field. Trump threw a monkey wrench in the pot and proved that Democrats can't buy elections either. Expand Then if I am hearing you correctly, state governments are corrupt and Fed government is pure. Talk about naive. Quote
Reagan Posted January 6, 2017 Author Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/5/2017 at 6:16 PM, Remmus said: The states need oversight just like the private sector. I know ur head just exploded, but we'd still be pumping mercury punch in Detroit w/o the Feds. Expand Rem -- what does the 10th Amendment say? I hope it doesn't explode YOUR head! Quote
PhatMack19 Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/5/2017 at 10:48 PM, Remmus said: There is no question that liberals do an impressive job of expressing concern for blacks. But do the intentions expressed in their words match the actual consequences of their deeds? San Francisco is a classic example of a city unexcelled in its liberalism. But the black population of San Francisco today is less than half of what it was back in 1970, even though the city's total population has grown. Severe restrictions on building housing in San Francisco have driven rents and home prices so high that blacks and other people with low or moderate incomes have been driven out of the city. The same thing has happened in a number of other California communities dominated by liberals. Expand I got confused by that novel, but I did read the part of it that I know a little about. People have tried to help the minorities in San Fran only to be shot down for being racist. This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up Quote
Remmus Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 2:01 AM, stevenash said: Then if I am hearing you correctly, state governments are corrupt and Fed government is pure. Talk about naive. Expand LOL...I don't trust Texas to protect civil rights. I trust the feds. I trust states to create amazing business environments. I don't trust the feds to resist taxing/regulating a business too much. Quote
Remmus Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 2:03 AM, Reagan said: Rem -- what does the 10th Amendment say? I hope it doesn't explode YOUR head! Expand "Libya, Libya, Libya" Quote
LumRaiderFan Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 1:54 AM, Remmus said: Without the Feds the ruling party of a state can make pretty much any daggone laws they very well please at the peril of the under-represented. For instance a state or even a locale can create an ordinance that allows restaurants to refuse service to Muslims or gays for instance. Now that very well may be the will of the people of that particular state, but its not fair/right (because we are Americans) to target a particular group. We've seen this before. One of the great things about America is we can travel from state to state with the expectation of uniform rights, privileges, and protection. 60 years ago (and further back) depending on who you were it was really important to know what state you were in and the policies/beliefs/laws of those people. Some of the intrusion we complain about today was put in motion by the government being forced to police the states bad behavior. This is one reason why minorities have more love for the feds than the states when it comes to social issues. Historically the Feds provided protection. MLK had to run to Kennedy cuz Bull Conner wasn't having it. When the demographics in the country started shifting and Republicans weren't able to buy elections (they tried like heck with Romney) all this talk of states rights spawned. This is all about a power grab and leveling the playing field. Trump threw a monkey wrench in the pot and proved that Democrats can't buy elections either. Expand Read the Constitution. Quote
Remmus Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 2:21 AM, PhatMack19 said: I got confused by that novel, but I did read the part of it that I know a little about. People have tried to help the minorities in San Fran only to be shot down for being racist. This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up Expand Interesting article. Another example of well intentioned with bad consequences. I really don't get into the politics of San-sodom and gomorrah. Quote
Remmus Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 2:32 AM, LumRaiderFan said: Read the Constitution. Expand The Constitution is being used the same way the Bible is used to promote personal or partisan interests. Quote
PhatMack19 Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 2:32 AM, Remmus said: Interesting article. Another example of well intentioned with bad consequences. I really don't get into the politics of San-sodom and gomorrah. Expand I work in Real Estate so I keep up with it across the country. I've built over 200 government houses in the area so I know a little about that as well. The amount of money that the govt waste on these programs is unbelievable. I could tell you numbers but you probably wouldn't believe them. It's good to get paid by the govt. Quote
Hagar Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 So you trust the Feds for civil rights? Have you ever considered that the more power the Feds have, the more they can control you? Take myself for instance. I'm on SS, and Medicare. Just for example, they pass a law (executive decision?) that you must stop eating meat, or you'll lose your SS and Medicare. Personally, I don't like being that vulnerable, but it happened. That's just an example, but the possibilities and vulnerability is there. And the more they folks control thru SS, Medicare, Welfare, food stamps, etc, the more potential power they have. Will they use it. I doubt anytime soon, but someday.........? Quote
stevenash Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 2:35 AM, Remmus said: The Constitution is being used the same way the Bible is used to promote personal or partisan interests. Expand Do you believe the Constitution ought to be followed or should it only be followed if one can "prove" it promotes their personal interest? Quote
Remmus Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 2:39 AM, PhatMack19 said: I work in Real Estate so I keep up with it across the country. I've built over 200 government houses in the area so I know a little about that as well. The amount of money that the govt waste on these programs is unbelievable. I could tell you numbers but you probably wouldn't believe them. It's good to get paid by the govt. Expand I'm a real estate investing noob and am learning. Some of that gouging is done by the recipients as well. Quote
Remmus Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 2:58 AM, REBgp said: So you trust the Feds for civil rights? Have you ever considered that the more power the Feds have, the more they can control you? Take myself for instance. I'm on SS, and Medicare. Just for example, they pass a law (executive decision?) that you must stop eating meat, or you'll lose your SS and Medicare. Personally, I don't like being that vulnerable, but it happened. That's just an example, but the possibilities and vulnerability is there. And the more they folks control thru SS, Medicare, Welfare, food stamps, etc, the more potential power they have. Will they use it. I doubt anytime soon, but someday.........? Expand Uuuuhhhhh???? The debtor is always slave to the debtee, so there's control in all those scenarios. You're argument is good IMO but really gets into ideology, which I respect. Quote
Remmus Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 2:58 AM, stevenash said: Do you believe the Constitution ought to be followed or should it only be followed if one can "prove" it promotes their personal interest? Expand It's open to interpretation and these are things Constitutional Law professors are made of. Quote
LumRaiderFan Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 2:35 AM, Remmus said: The Constitution is being used the same way the Bible is used to promote personal or partisan interests. Expand How so on the Constitution? Quote
PhatMack19 Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 2:59 AM, Remmus said: I'm a real estate investing noob and am learning. Some of that gouging is done by the recipients as well. Expand Give me a call Quote
Remmus Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 3:13 AM, PhatMack19 said: Give me a call Expand Thank you sir. I'm in hibernation right now with real estate, but plan to start up again soon. Quote
Reagan Posted January 6, 2017 Author Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 3:03 AM, Remmus said: It's open to interpretation and these are things Constitutional Law professors are made of. Expand The 10th Amendment is pretty clear! If you haven't already, you might want to read it. trust, you will be able to understand it. Now -- believing it may be a different story! Quote
Coach Frey Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 2:58 AM, REBgp said: So you trust the Feds for civil rights? Have you ever considered that the more power the Feds have, the more they can control you? Take myself for instance. I'm on SS, and Medicare. Just for example, they pass a law (executive decision?) that you must stop eating meat, or you'll lose your SS and Medicare. Personally, I don't like being that vulnerable, but it happened. That's just an example, but the possibilities and vulnerability is there. And the more they folks control thru SS, Medicare, Welfare, food stamps, etc, the more potential power they have. Will they use it. I doubt anytime soon, but someday.........? Expand Seeing how 60 years ago an entire race of people was being treated like second class citizens in this country and the Feds stood by and let it happen (or idiots like Goldwater said the Civil Rights Act should be repealed), I don't hold much faith in the Feds protecting civil rights. Good post REBgp. 77 1 Quote
Remmus Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 12:47 PM, Coach Frey said: Seeing how 60 years ago an entire race of people was being treated like second class citizens in this country and the Feds stood by and let it happen (or idiots like Goldwater said the Civil Rights Act should be repealed), I don't hold much faith in the Feds protecting civil rights. Good post REBgp. Expand When Goldwater was running the feds were still your best chance. A certain collection of states had people solve race issues with rope. IJS. Quote
Coach Frey Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 3:04 PM, Remmus said: When Goldwater was running the feds were still your best chance. A certain collection of states had people solve race issues with rope. IJS. Expand And thus you prove the point. If states were lynching, the Feds should have stepped in. They didn't because they are inept. Quote
Remmus Posted January 6, 2017 Report Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 3:15 PM, Coach Frey said: And thus you prove the point. If states were lynching, the Feds should have stepped in. They didn't because they are inept. Expand They kinda did with all the laws that are on the books. I guess some military cops coming to the south to keep watch was really the answer. Could have set up the old Civil War districts, started appointing governors... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.