Why is the state allowed to dictate whether or not your community allows smoking in public? What gives the state of Ohio the right, but not the federal government, to institute that smoking ban in your community? Shouldn't it be on a community by community basis, based on your logic? I'm trying to understand what's so magical about the state that is not magical about the federal government or the county, or the township, or the city, or the ward.

I have nothing against pan either, he seems like a good guy, I hope he gets the change he's hoping for, but I reckon he won't be happy regardless of what happens.

What's with the false equivalence bullshit? "moderates can go to protests they believe in, sponsored by MoveOn... and get all kinds of love?"

Where was this love. Don't start with platitudes. Where was this love? Which news organization helped fund raise for these organizations? Supported them to the degree fox news, Glen Beck, Rush and so on have supported the "tea parties?"

And where are these people who worship Obama, who see him as a golden boy who can't do no wrong?

Where? If this is all so prevalent, it shouldnt be too hard to find half a dozen examples in this thread alone.

This siege you seem to believe to be under is entirely a fabrication of your mind.

And yet you claim that anyone who is not ready to fall for a GOP sponsored event is brainwashed, obnoxious and snobbish. And that you are the one being attacked!

Also, by how much, exactly, are your taxes going up under Obama?

It just gets boring after a while reading the same crap without an ounce of substance and still be accused of being brainwashed.

I agree with you. I also want to say that I'm 100% AGAINST issues like abortion and gay marriage being decided on a state-by-state basis, especially if they are being decided by popular vote. The idea that the majority of people voting about gay rights would not be gay, or that half (or more) of the people voting on abortion rights would be men just doesn't sit well with me.

There are MoveOn protests? I've honestly never heard of them. If I did, I'd never go to them. Think tanks and lobbies have ulterior and self-serving motives that run counter to the idea behind protests.

Okay, I googled these protests and it looks like they only include official MoveOn members. This is a case of apples and oranges. Or are you a member of FreedomWorks?

move on was active in organizing the early protests against the war in iraq.
we all know how much love they got from the press.
o yeah, those liberal heroes in the mainstream press stood right on up to bush administration, to conservative domination, to the foul and unnecessary war in iraq and the broader "war on terror" that made it possible.
i was at alot of those protests and have a pretty good idea of just how much love there was. it was easy to see in the tiny paragraphs devoted to the demonstrations which covered the 20 people who'd show up to counterprotest at action which drew upward of a half million people as if they were operating on the same level.

it was easy to see, just like translating those messages from the space alien overlords are if you peer real hard at baseball box scores is easy.

It's called the constitution. Why SHOULDN'T the state be allowed to decide on smoking issues? The federal constitution says anything not given to the federal government is to be regulated by the states. Does everything have to be black and white nationwide?

I never understand this. Why would someone in a liberal state want to force their beliefs on a state with more conservative values or vice versa?

The federal government is basically supposed to protect sovereignty of the United States, issue currency, build postal roads, issue patents and a few other very limited powers. Currently they do much more than that and can't get what they are supposed to do correctly.

I don't agree with states regulating smoking over local communities, but they should have the power over it instead of the federal government.

The states have their constitutional right to self direction under the 10th amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

This is by design to encourage each state's regional identity under the union (diversity). Read the 5000 Year Leap.

The point is not so much about why the federal government shouldn't have authority over states, but why states, according to pan, should have authority over smaller communities. Pan specifically said that he accepts the Ohio smoking ban because it was passed by the state. I'm wondering what logic he's using that makes him OK with that but not OK with the federal government superceding the states on issues of discrimination such as gay marriage.

---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 PM ----------

I understand the 10th Amendment, but what is generally being argued for here is a confederacy, which goes well beyond the 10th Amendment. Besides, we tried that once and it was a failure.

it's worse than simple incoherence logically---the particular state's rights arguments we've treated to above comes out of the reconstruction period and was used throughout it, and again in opposition to the civil rights movement, to attempt to short-circuit policies and laws that were set up to assure that african-americans were treated equally. this history is to my mind so ugly that it baffles me each time i see the same kind of arguments repeated here. and there's no wishing this history away. it doesn't change. there's an overwhelming amount of documentation that demonstrates this linkage.

the only tweak on them above, really, is now a perverse appropriation of the discourse of diversity has been tacked on.

from what i can figure, the problems are structurally about the same for these folk as it was for their intellectual forebearers in the opposition to civil rights---they're freaked out that the federal government is acting because they are concerned that if it does act, they will loose. this because the petit-bourgeois right is made up of the eternal victim, is built around the mythology of its own victimization...so better inaction and incoherence, particularly in a situation of crisis--seemingly because if there's inaction and incoherence, these folk might not loose, but if the federal government act, they seem sure that they definitely will.

Can someone recommend a few stodgy conservative journo-outlets similar to The Economist? I'd like to hear some more opinons on this from that set.

Because I don't believe in sweeping generalizations like "Liberal" or "Conservative" states. I lived in Chicago for 12 years, and it was pretty obvious that while Chicago was Liberal, the rest of the state leaned more conservative. The state is considered "blue" because the Chicago area has about 75% of the state's voting body, but where does that leave the rest of the state?

Personally, I think smoking should be up to the private business owner. But, it's up to the state. I understand what you are saying and a selfish part of me wants to say let the communities decide and up until then in Ohio they had to a degree. Akron was pretty much smoke free within the city, Canton a restaurant had to have a room or area with separate ventilation (the law cost a lot of places money because they had installed the separate ventilation).

My view is that when enough communities within a state and enough people petition for a law, like that, it is the state's responsibility to put it to vote. To me a vote on an issue such as this is far, far different than the state just saying "you cannot smoke in public places."

---------- Post added at 12:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 AM ----------

Just because the majority is not gay or men.... does not mean that they would vote against the proposals.

I just think that it is not the Fed's purpose to dictate what laws such as those a state can have. I also don't believe that every state would deny legalized abortion or gay marriage. And if it doesn't pass the first time, find out what would help it pass and keep putting it on the ballot.

---------- Post added at 01:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 AM ----------


Plain and simple it's called wanting to have power over others.If you are pro-abortion and you get abortion clinics everywhere including the heart of the Bible Belt where the vast majority do not want it but can do nothing about it because the Fed government states you can't..... then you have a sense of power over these people because your view and will proved more powerful than theirs.

That's why extremists do not want the states allowing the people to decide their laws. If they give that power to the Fed and can vote the party in they can impose their will regardless of what the true (not some poll) majority of a state wants.

Like gay marriage, I really don't believe in the vast majority that this is an issue. It only becomes an issue when you take it out of the people's hands and give that right to decide to the Fed. or state. Then, it becomes just a dictation and not a consensus of the people's will. Dictations people resent, letting the people vote and decide allows them the feeling of being heard.

Normally I'd say hubris, but I'd kinda like to legalize gay marriage in Utah out of retaliation for what they did to my state. What's your stance on retaliatory belief forcing? Perpetual belief forcing? Belief forcing escalation? Or justice?

This is the single greatest thing ever broadcast on a cable news channel:


- Schuster: If You're Planning Tea Bagging Across The Country, 'You're Going To Need A Dick Armey'

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I will say this states should mandate who can fund issue ads. To have out of state people or corporations do it should be illegal. Sort of a campaign finance law on issue spending in states.

Californians had it with Utah and others, we had ours last year through Indiana's riverboats (and other state's but they were the big ones) spending huge sums to make sure the gambling issue failed here.

There is only 1 law I truly would like to see nationally and that is equal time for candidates and issues (in other words NO money being spent)... that way he who has the most money isn't guaranteed more air time or chance to bury the opposition with more ads.

But when enough communities within a state and enough people petition for a federal representative, and that representative chosen by the people passes a federal law with the help of other representatives chosen by the people - in fact, a majority of representatives chosen by the people - that's a problem? Why are state representatives more worthy of being recognized as chosen by the people than federal representatives?

You're right, gay marriage is not an issue to the vast majority of people (about 90%). It's those ~10% of people - the gay population - who care a great deal about gay marriage because it is the government - state or otherwise - making a value judgment about their relationship. You have yet to explain to me why state's can't choose whether or not to allow interracial marriage, but can choose whether or not to allow gay marriage. Neither situation is covered under the US constitution.

Based on pan's past posts, I find it hard to believe that he's so pro "Tyranny of the Majority" as he claims.

seriously, i see nothing in pan's posts beyond anxiety.

the only coherent argument for transferring that much power to the states is that state government seems physically closer and so gives a greater illusion of control.
the individual arguments don't fit together.

i understand why folk would be anxious in this overall economic situation.
we're all at least a bit anxious.
what i don't understand is allowing that anxiety free reign to entirely shape how you see, well, everything, and even less giving yourself over to a politics entirely determined by it, speaking to and about only it.

I'm also not sure why anyone would think that gay rights, abortion rights or the like should be voted on by the public. We're not talking about how state tax dollars are spent here or if Ohio should build a casino in Cleveland. Constitutional rights should be voted on by either the state congress or decided by the state supreme court.

that problem is why i mentioned the ugly history of this version of state's rights arguments as they emerged during the reconstruction period.

it is a real problem. i don't think folk have thought this out.

So are these people protesting that Obama has lowered their tax rates?

I haven't watched any of the coverage so I don't even know. I'd be willing to wager that many of the people don't even know why they're there.

Time will tell. I can't wait for the media coverage of today's Tax Day Anti-Tax Tea Party Protests. (Say that ten times fast.)

That's one bet I'd not take against you. From what I've been able to discern many if not most of them are Limbaugh-listening dittoheads who are determined to believe that the democrats want to take their money, even though they'll end up paying less under the democratic plan. There is a certain section of society, depressingly large, that fights loudly and vigorously for their own detriment.

what a shock. it's the lead story on faux news webpage.

Anti-Tax 'Tea Party' Protests Expected Across U.S. - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

this is particularly funny:

and of course there is the requisite proactive edito decrying the "liberal press" and its "orwellian" demeanor and chastizing it in advance for not covering the "grassroots" movement, brought to you by faux news and a range of other conservative/corporate sponsors:

DAN GAINOR: Note to the Media — Just Do Your Job and Cover the Tea Parties FOX Forum FOXNews.com

this is funny stuff.

This theatre bit,
has a familiar stink;

another attempt to froth the waters,
with fear and instability, as a diversionary, control tactic.

Trying to tip the balance,
by manipulating the teeter-totter.

Well when you get enough states making something legal/illegal much like cities/counties to state, then Congress and the president can debate it and vote for it.

Not that it worked well or was the best of ideas in history, but that's how Prohibition was started enough states had already outlawed alcohol in one way or another and the amendment process started.

Personally, I don't care who marries whom. But by the same token, I don't believe in forcing my beliefs into a state I will probably never live in.

If your gay and you cannot get married in your state go to one that allows it and get married then go back and live happily ever after.

The problem with this country is you have extremists carrying clubs around and bashing people over the head, threatening lawsuits and trying to bully their will into law. There is no compromise. There is no respecting others beliefs. there's just "I'll pummel you into submission, I'll get the press to back me and I'll sue you into poverty until you accept my will."

I truly believe the average citizen, who works hard and is just trying to survive is tired of it. It's all back and forth and back and forth and nothing seems to truly get done but for the people carrying the clubs bashing innocents.

If you want gay marriage in your state work with people by telling them your side, why that issue is important, how it will affect them and campaign for it. Don't bash people into acceptance. IT WON'T HAPPEN. In the end all you will ever get is resentment and more prejudice, more hatred and more polarity, anger and an eventual breakdown in society that will call for a police state. If you truly want freedom, it comes from the people voting on issues that affect them or family or friends. If you want a police state continue the road we are on and ignore what the majority wants because you believe government and the guys carrying the clubs know what is best for EVERYONE and not just an extreme vocal minority.

all I know is if it has this many liberals and democrats doing everything they can to mock and ridicule it, somebody is doing something right.

By that logic, dksuddeth, the tea parties prove that Obama is doing something right.

I see, so it's ok for the federal government to force states to obey laws that they don't otherwise want so long as enough other states also created the same laws, but not if enough federal representatives chosen by the people of other states to make federal laws create the law. Makes total sense. :rolleyes:

Too bad that's not how it works. Other states are not obligated to recognize the marriage. More importantly, you still have not addressed my question. Are you saying you support a state's right to outlaw interracial marriage: yes or no? If not, what makes interracial marriage - which is not protected under the US constitution - a federal issue, but gay marriage a state one?

Funny, have you heard of this thing called the Civil Rights Movement? See, in the south (and elsewhere, but primarily the south) there was this minority of people who had a different color skin, and the majority of people in those states at the time did not want to treat them fairly. They did everything they had to in order to comply with the US constitution, but absolutely no more, and so the minority of people - and others who supported them - metaphorically bullied their will into law. In the end, they won, because enough people recognized that the United States government does not solely exist to enforce the will of the majority, but also to protect the minority from that majority. There are some negative side-effects in the short term, yes, but lo and behold now we have a black president, which was unimaginable just 40 years ago. Go figure.

owned....

Yeah if that many neo-cons and GOP'ers are pissed off something must be going right.

What's the word? Any field reports from our Tea Partiers?

The one here doesn't start until 5, I believe.

this is kind of a funny read. really is it that contentious?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...92-57-26PM.png
from: http://www.rossputin.com/blog/media/...ptorsFlyer.pdf

that's classic.

it's a drama queen pamphlet advising other drama queens to not be such drama queens else they be caught on camera and their image sent out over feeds not properly boxed in by the official conservative press structures interpretation and in the process be revealed as drama queens.

my favorite remedy: pretend to be interested.

proof positive that it's all about perception. thats why I have the mindset that I do. I'm getting really tired of the left/right BS.

---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:58 PM ----------

strange, I don't FEEL owned.

And what mindset is that? That only your skewed perception of things is the right perception? You aren't making very much sense here. . .

The fact (yes, FACT) is that 95% of us will pay lower taxes under Obama's plan, and yet a good portion of that 95% is running around to tea parties today yelling about how pissed off they are about having to pay higher taxes. They're uninformed, ignorant, wrong, and just plain stupid.