Bachmann proves she has no sense; alienates Fox News host - Page 3

Ben Lahnger · 08-14-2011, 08:24 PM

Here's a fun fact!

Did you know that Texas Governor Rick Perry was once a conservative Democrat, and ran Al Gore's presidential campaign in Texas?

LOL!

Deadmanwalking_05 · 08-14-2011, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

But not all. And those others didn't respect one of the most fundamental human rights.
But hey, states rights!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a civil war in the United States of America. Eleven Southern slave states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America ("the Confederacy") to fight for independence. Twenty (mostly Northern) free states in which slavery already had been abolished, and five slave states that became known as the "border states" supported the federal government. These twenty-five states, referred to as the Union, had a much larger base of population and industry than the South. After four years of warfare, mostly within the Southern states, the Confederacy surrendered and slavery was outlawed everywhere in the nation. Issues that led to war were resolved only in the Reconstruction Era that followed the restoration of the Union.

Deadmanwalking_05 · 08-14-2011, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshleyO

So was it okay for the south to have slavery, Deadman? Is a state's right to be horrible to its people more or equally as important as a human being that deserves equal rights and protections by law?

Before the civil war broke out there were 20 states that abolished slavery,without the federal government stepping in.

What I'm saying and what you don't seem to be getting is the fact that states rights isn't a bad thing it can be seen as such but isn't always the case.

Alan · 08-14-2011, 08:31 PM

Why wait until the states decide that people are human beings?

Deadmanwalking_05 · 08-14-2011, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

Why wait until the states decide that people are human beings?

That's not what I'm saying and you know it Alan so knock it off.

What I'm saying is the best route to go is to continue as you have been and build support,the more support you have the faster things can move along.

The faster things move the better the results you'll see at the end.

Alan · 08-14-2011, 08:35 PM

Not true. More than half of America supports gay marriage now. Yet only about half of the states do.
You're taking away a basic civil right by putting more emphasis on states than people.

AshleyO · 08-14-2011, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Before the civil war broke out there were 20 states that abolished slavery,without the federal government stepping in.

So there are no moral absolutes? It's all popular consensus and it's TOTALLY okay for a state to be monstrous so long as most people will allow it?

What would you do, Deadman, if the states wanted to abolish the constitution?

Quote:

What I'm saying and what you don't seem to be getting is the fact that states rights isn't a bad thing it can be seen as such but isn't always the case.

State's rights are not a bad thing. I'm saying states should not have the right to mistreat their constituents. For some weird reason, you seem to think it's okay. Not sure why, but... G.net can have you now. I'm done with you.

You're one messed up cat.

Deadmanwalking_05 · 08-14-2011, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshleyO

So there are no moral absolutes? It's all popular consensus and it's TOTALLY okay for a state to be monstrous so long as most people will allow it?

What would you do, Deadman, if the states wanted to abolish the constitution?

State's rights are not a bad thing. I'm saying states should not have the right to mistreat their constituents. For some weird reason, you seem to think it's okay. Not sure why, but... G.net can have you now. I'm done with you.

You're one messed up cat.

And I'm not saying that states have the right to mistreat constituents.

All I'm trying to do is tell you the best and quickest way to get the results you want.

AshleyO · 08-14-2011, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

And I'm not saying that states have the right to mistreat constituents.

Yes you are. You're setting a statute of limitations on states mistreating their own people until a majority of states tells them to quit being monstrous dicks. An injustice is an injustice. We shouldn't have to wait for a majority of states to agree on what's good or bad for a person.

Quote:

All I'm trying to do is tell you the best and quickest way to get the results you want.

No. It's not. Because we've already seen what happens when a majority of the states uses the federal government to tell all the states what to do. We get civil war.

Alan · 08-14-2011, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

And I'm not saying that states have the right to mistreat constituents.

All I'm trying to do is tell you the best and quickest way to get the results you want.

And that's patently false, because as I've told you, already more than half of America support gay marriage.

Grausamkeit · 08-14-2011, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

Not true. More than half of America supports gay marriage now. Yet only about half of the states do.
You're taking away a basic civil right by putting more emphasis on states than people.

This. All people should have their rights protected by the constitution. The states should not be able to say, individually, that certain people are more or less equal in state A than in state B. Everyone deserves equal rights and equal protections under the constitution.

Does that make sense? I don't think I said equal enough.

Deadmanwalking_05 · 08-14-2011, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

And that's patently false, because as I've told you, already more than half of America support gay marriage.

Acutally it's more of a hold up with the federal government then.

Because if more than half the population of the U.S. supports gay marriage,that would mean that the states also support it.

Because the population of the States are the PEOPLE.

Alan · 08-14-2011, 08:49 PM

You do know not all states have the same amount of people, right? I just fucking told you in my post above. Why do you only pay attention to the selective bits that I have to tell you at least twice? You just waste your and my time.

AshleyO · 08-14-2011, 08:51 PM

Graus, I appreciate you hanging back.

Now for my conclusion:

Deadman isn't really a bad person. He's a misguided person. He puts the sovereignty of a state over the welfare of a human being. He avoids tough debates and tough decisions by dismissing it as a debate that a state should address. He believes a state's right to be a state and operate independently from the federal government is initially MORE important than the power of the constitution and what that piece of paper is supposed to represent.

He doesn't care about justice for the people at large, he cares that states have self determination BEFORE the well being of a human being.

All in all, his priorities are totally fucked.

AshleyO · 08-14-2011, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Acutally it's more of a hold up with the federal government then.

Because if more than half the population of the U.S. supports gay marriage,that would mean that the states also support it.

Because the population of the States are the PEOPLE.

Why is the federal government not of the people? Doesn't the federal government answer to Americans?

Grausamkeit · 08-14-2011, 08:53 PM

I figured you had a point so I wasn't perturbed. I was chomping at the bit a little, though.

AshleyO · 08-14-2011, 08:58 PM

Go get him, Graus. I think my point was sufficiently proven.

Deadmanwalking_05 · 08-14-2011, 09:02 PM

That isn't what I'm saying.

It is a long process,I wish it could happen overnight for you and yours.

But from the looks of things it isn't going to.

and it won't unless you continue the fight at the local (State) level,which I hope you do,because believe it or not you have my support.

Even though you would most likely regulate my rights out of exsistance.

And as weird as it may sound I'm not your enemy.

Alan · 08-14-2011, 09:05 PM

You said going by the states would be quicker. I proved you otherwise. That is it.
If there were a national referendum, gays in Texas could marry by the next year.
If it's by states rights, it ain't happening in probably 20 years.

So much for it being the quickest way, huh?

Deadmanwalking_05 · 08-14-2011, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

You said going by the states would be quicker. I proved you otherwise. That is it.
If there were a national referendum, gays in Texas could marry by the next year.
If it's by states rights, it ain't happening in probably 20 years.

So much for it being the quickest way, huh?

It's the fastest way to have something like an amendment with full protections (which is what is wanted)

It's a slow process,but a lasting process once put in place.

AshleyO · 08-14-2011, 09:09 PM

Alan has a point, Deadman.

State's rights are keen and all, but they shouldn't be the end all be all or even the entry level of what a right's relevancy.

Besides, I find it really interesting that you'd think it's okay for a majority of states to dictate what another state does if state rights are so important.

AshleyO · 08-14-2011, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

It's the fastest way to have something like an amendment with full protections (which is what is wanted)

It's a slow process,but a lasting process once put in place.

You do know that it's very likely that gay rights can go up before the supreme courts long before there is a majority support on the state level, right?

So... why is it wrong for the federal government to ignore the state's right to be horrible to its constituents when it decides that something is clearly just?

AshleyO · 08-14-2011, 09:15 PM

Also, the federal government is of the people. I don't see why you think the feds aren't of the people.

Besides, what are you going to do if the majority of the states exercise their precious rights to disband the second amendment? Somehow, I doubt you're really one for state's rights when it comes to your own rights being taken away.

Spooky Spencer · 08-14-2011, 09:15 PM

I haven't been of this earth for very long, but I think dragging out something my Mom once told me makes sense here:

"What difference does it make when two people love each other? Last time I checked, souls were neither male nor female."

Deadmanwalking_05 · 08-14-2011, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshleyO

You do know that it's very likely that gay rights can go up before the supreme courts long before there is a majority support on the state level, right?

So... why is it wrong for the federal government to ignore the state's right to be horrible to its constituents when it decides that something is clearly just?

Why is it right for the Federal Govenment to ignore the rights of Marijuana users?

Even if said Marijuana users are sick and mary jane has been proven to be the least harmful medicine?