And yes, even in its greatness then, there were problems, with racism, sexism, fear of "other," criminal activity, duplicitous politics, etc...but it was still a peak of greatness....Yes.....WW2.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
And yes, even in its greatness then, there were problems, with racism, sexism, fear of "other," criminal activity, duplicitous politics, etc...but it was still a peak of greatness....Yes.....WW2.
Greatness is not about perfection.And yes, even in its greatness then, there were problems, with racism, sexism, fear of "other," criminal activity, duplicitous politics, etc...but it was still a peak of greatness....
I think states individual rights are essential and ought to be preserved. It's a major reason why I'm so against unified blanket socialism.
I think that might be the single most important thing anyone has even tried to say in this thread.Greatness is not about perfection.
I was going to mention that, but thought it would be obvious to our sophisticated community.
good point; and it was probably obvious to everyone but me...Greatness is not about perfection.
I was going to mention that, but thought it would be obvious to our sophisticated community.
"State's rights" is usually just an excuse for backwards states to discriminate against various groups. It always struck me as stupid that you could go from one state to another and lose rights and liberties, and vice versa.I think states individual rights are essential and ought to be preserved. It's a major reason why I'm so against unified blanket socialism.
As my dead mother-in-law would've said....good point; and it was probably obvious to everyone but me...
perhaps, but I am incredibly obtuse, sometimes, maybe most times...As my dead mother-in-law would've said....
Tai ke qi.
(Roughly.....You're being modest.)
Bu yao tai ke qi!perhaps, but I am incredibly obtuse, sometimes, maybe most times...
In fact, I challenge anyone to find me an example where "state's rights" was used as an argument for something that wasn't about restricting the rights to some minority or another. And no, removing ability right to legally discriminate against someone doesn't count."State's rights" is usually just an excuse for backwards states to discriminate against various groups. It always struck me as stupid that you could go from one state to another and lose rights and liberties, and vice versa.
I hear where your coming from, yet when you really think about it, there's always an option available to move to a state more suited to your liking. If federalism goes down a universal socialised path, people who may not appreciate things arguably will have no place to run or escape to if states lose their automony. That would be a bad road imo."State's rights" is usually just an excuse for backwards states to discriminate against various groups. It always struck me as stupid that you could go from one state to another and lose rights and liberties, and vice versa.
I see no fed constutional authority to ban marijuana,In fact, I challenge anyone to find me an example where "state's rights" was used as an argument for something that wasn't about restricting the rights to some minority or another. And no, removing ability right to legally discriminate against someone doesn't count.
We hear so much banter and rhetoric about making America great again as a country, but tell me, based on past to present throughout the history of the country, was there really ever any period of "greatness" that can be pointed out as an example?
So long as you have either a job which would allow you to live in one state while working in another, or you have enough saved up income for the 3-4 months or however long it generally takes to move to a new place and find a new job.I hear where your coming from, yet when you really think about it, there's always an option available to move to a state more suited to your liking. If federalism goes down a universal socialised path, people who may not appreciate things arguably will have no place to run or escape to if states lose their automony. That would be a bad road imo.
But no one is using state's rights as the argument for it.I see no fed constutional authority to ban marijuana,
but when states have legalized it, the fed spank's users & makers.
Lately, this has become a states' rights issue.
The Constitution's 10th Amendment is still the law of the land.
Edit:
As a Libertarian, this has long mattered to me (non-smoker, btw).
And now I have a MJ testing lab as a tenant.
Thorny legal issues there.
**** the fed!
Geeze, did I really say that?
Are you sure?But no one is using state's rights as the argument for it.
America really needs to change its name from the "United States" since so many Americans want to act like it's a bunch of different countries and "hating the fed" is always popular.I hear where your coming from, yet when you really think about it, there's always an option available to move to a state more suited to your liking. If federalism goes down a universal socialised path, people who may not appreciate things arguably will have no place to run or escape to if states lose their automony. That would be a bad road imo.
I have, actually. I won't pretend it was an exhaustive search, I did not scour the globe or what not, but I gave it an hour and could not find any examples of someone basing the argument of marijuana legalization on the notion of states' rights or such.Are you sure?
Done a search?
I have, actually. I won't pretend it was an exhaustive search, I did not scour the globe or what not, but I gave it an hour and could not find any examples of someone basing the argument of marijuana legalization on the notion of states' rights or such.
America really needs to change its name from the "United States" since so many Americans want to act like it's a bunch of different countries and "hating the fed" is always popular.
...the Constitution, which went into operation in 1789 when the first Congress convened and George Washington took the oath of office as president. The government is called federal because it was formed by a compact (the Constitution) among 13 political units (the states). These states agreed to give up part of their independence, or sovereignty, in order to form a central authority and submit themselves to it. Thus, what was essentially a group of 13 separate countries under the Articles of Confederation united to form one nation under the Constitution.
My response to that rhetoric is confusion, because it seems pretty great to me right now, on the whole.
But I'm also one of those apparently rare people that knows how to count their blessings.