GordonC
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2017
- Messages
- 21,496
- Likes
- 39,336
Where are these people.... Seens few and far between. Your wanting something that as of right now is a pipe dream as much as the lefts ideal utopia..it won't happen.your not taking into consideration that humans are inherently power hungry, selfish, violent..those 3 thing don't make for what either side is asking for. And those that share your beliefs while few don't want the power or responsibility..so what then?? Force them to serve the people...Start voting for people that feel the same way.
Where are these people.... Seens few and far between. Your wanting something that as of right now is a pipe dream as much as the lefts ideal utopia..it won't happen.your not taking into consideration that humans are inherently power hungry, selfish, violent..those 3 thing don't make for what either side is asking for. And those that share your beliefs while few don't want the power or responsibility..so what then?? Force them to serve the people...
On a side note..what is easier to do...move from a leftist fully controlled government (socialist, communism etc). And move right to freedom..or a right government (populist etc) and move left..which will get you closer to the middle with the passage of time?
I'm not saying that is at all. My basic premise is that freedom is wonderful in a perfect utopian society where the human condition is evolved out...the power hungry, greedy, need to control others is out..we are hundreds of years in and repeating the same mistakes over and over..because we are trying to achieve something before we are ready. But I'll also say that banning certain things in line what the rights view of good v evil is easier to move towards more freedom the. The left debauchery and slavery is to move towards freedom. Freedom is a myth at this point as human could never handle true freedom without it devolving to chaosExplain to me how banning things and taking away local and individual choices is a move towards freedom?
Again, I agree with you that it was unconstitutional... but I believe that to be irrelevant as the law did, in fact, exist. As such, the federal government therefore had to reverse that prior ruling before it could become a state issue.Huh?
The Supreme Court had to correct an unconstitutional ruling by a previous court.
Again, I agree with you that it was unconstitutional... but I believe that to be irrelevant as the law did, in fact, exist. As such, the federal government therefore had to reverse that prior ruling before it could become a state issue.
Sorry... was watching the end of the Lady Vols softball game so I'm not really focused on this, even though I'm the one that initiated it!There was no law, the Supreme Court ruled abortion was a constitutional right. The current court fixed that error.
Sorry... was watching the end of the Lady Vols softball game so I'm not really focused on this, even though I'm the one that initiated it!
Yes, it was a constitutional right (that existed for 50 years) that was reversed because it was bad law to begin with (per our mutual understanding). But again, that previous position had to be reversed before the states could regain the right to address abortion. Do you think it would have been reversed if the left held more positions on the Supreme Court?
To an extent... yes. But I think that was the point the previous poster was trying to make. While I agree it would be my preference (and clearly yours) that the federal government restrict it's powers to those things that the constitution allows, it's also a bit naïve to not recognize that at present it's largely a yin/yang situation. So if one party seems very much in favor of increasing the role of the federal government, and they enact policy that allows for that to happen (shut downs, forced jabs or lose your job, etc.), then another party needs to be the offset of that to hopefully provide a counter balance.No but I don’t understand what you are trying to get at. Tyrannical left and tyrannical right are opposite sides of the same coin.
To an extent... yes. But I think that was the point the previous poster was trying to make. While I agree it would be my preference (and clearly yours) that the federal government restrict it's powers to those things that the constitution allows, it's also a bit naïve to not recognize that at present it's largely a yin/yang situation. So if one party seems very much in favor of increasing the role of the federal government, and they enact policy that allows for that to happen (shut downs, forced jabs or lose your job, etc.), then another party needs to be the offset of that to hopefully provide a counter balance.
And do you think they're equal in their actions for centralized control, because I do not.
Trump publicly shat on Governors opening earlier then he wanted them to. Not a peep of dissent from the vast majority of the GOP leadership slamming him for that.To an extent... yes. But I think that was the point the previous poster was trying to make. While I agree it would be my preference (and clearly yours) that the federal government restrict it's powers to those things that the constitution allows, it's also a bit naïve to not recognize that at present it's largely a yin/yang situation. So if one party seems very much in favor of increasing the role of the federal government, and they enact policy that allows for that to happen (shut downs, forced jabs or lose your job, etc.), then another party needs to be the offset of that to hopefully provide a counter balance.
I think it's going to happen, and if the R's are smart they will use it as an opportunity that fell in their laps. I believe if the message is delivered correctly, there are numerous voters that would choose to support a party that believes in (and actually takes action to achieve) a smaller, less intrusive government.Pretty much. The biggest slap at centralized government in my lifetime has been the reversal of RvW, haven’t seen either party put forward any legislation that would reduce the size or power of the fed .gov.
What will be interesting is what will the Rs do if SCOTUS reverses the Chevron ruling. That has the potential to gut federal power.
I think it's going to happen, and if the R's are smart they will use it as an opportunity that fell in their laps. I believe if the message is delivered correctly, there are numerous voters that would choose to support a party that believes in (and actually takes action to achieve) a smaller, less intrusive government.