Will the Democrats move in the direction of States' rights? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2024, 10:56:14 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Will the Democrats move in the direction of States' rights? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Will the Democrats move in the direction of States' rights?
#1
Yes
#2
No
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results


Author Topic: Will the Democrats move in the direction of States' rights?  (Read 5035 times)
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


« on: May 22, 2010, 03:01:28 PM »

On some issues like gay marriage so that they don't have to take an unpopular stand. On issues like health care they won't because it means less control for them. So, they will if it benefits them but if not then they'll try to take over themselves.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2010, 09:32:28 PM »

I could never see the Democrats returning to a state's rights platform.  Civil rights are completely ingrained into the party and extracting them like that would cause their base to collapse.  Democrats nationally are all about using the federal government to correct real and perceived injustices against those with little to no political and/or economic power.

Civil rights can mean alot of things such as someone's civil right to not allow someone at their restaurant. After all, you and I have the same right to not allow someone in our home if we choose not to. I don't agree with segregation, but I do not think it's any of the federal government's business.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2010, 08:43:48 PM »

I could never see the Democrats returning to a state's rights platform.  Civil rights are completely ingrained into the party and extracting them like that would cause their base to collapse.  Democrats nationally are all about using the federal government to correct real and perceived injustices against those with little to no political and/or economic power.

Civil rights can mean alot of things such as someone's civil right to not allow someone at their restaurant. After all, you and I have the same right to not allow someone in our home if we choose not to. I don't agree with segregation, but I do not think it's any of the federal government's business.

It's one thing to not allow someone in your business if they are threatening your customers or causing a disturbance.  It's a completely different matter to deny someone service based on their religion, race, ethnicity, etc.  Also, there are major differences between keeping strangers out of your house and kicking them out of a store.  That's apples and oranges. 

The government has every right to ensure the fair and equal treatment of all citizens.  I don't want to even imagine the kinds of injustices that would still be taking place if we didn't have anti-segregation laws.

I respect your point of view on this matter.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2010, 12:10:43 AM »

no, because that means less control for their handlers in Moscow.

So you think they're being run out of Moscow? See I was thinking China or the UN or even Bill Ayers' basement.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2010, 02:23:00 AM »

no, because that means less control for their handlers in Moscow.

So you think they're being run out of Moscow? See I was thinking China or the UN or even Bill Ayers' basement.

nope. Moscow. Either that or Riyadh/Islamabad.

lol what about Kenya?
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2010, 10:34:56 AM »

No way.

The Democratic Party has pretty much adopted the slogan: All big government, all the time.  And no, those petty DINOs in places like Oklahoma, Kentucky, and other places don't count since their voices don't mean jack Bo Diddley when talking with the big boys and girls.

The Democratic Party has adopted the slogan … Let's become the Diet Republican party! (The party years before George W. Bush. The Republican Party expanded government. But plenty of their defenders are brainwashed into thinking otherwise.)

We don't think it was good how Bush expanded government either but at the time he had a good argument. The left keeps using Bush as a reflection of everything the GOP has and ever will stand for and it's just not true. Nice try though.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2010, 02:57:05 PM »


We don't think it was good how Bush expanded government either but at the time he had a good argument. The left keeps using Bush as a reflection of everything the GOP has and ever will stand for and it's just not true. Nice try though.

Assuming we refers to the entire Republican Party, this is not convincing. Bush had blind party-liners' support for party's sake. What you write is as good as any out-of-office Republican endorsing, say, same-sex marriage. It doesn't do any good. Nor does it impress. Piss-poor try.

The democrats will do anything that benefits them at the time. They were against the Civil Rights bill in 1957 and for it in 1964 because they learned how to manipulate minorities into voting for them. Now all of a sudden they are for states' rights on gay marriage and drugs SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO TAKE A STAND THEMSELVES. It's called copping out and will be another reasons why democrats lose the House this fall.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.037 seconds with 14 queries.