Fed up with Washington's involvement in everything from land use to gun control to education spending, states across the country are fighting back against what they say is the federal government's growing intrusion on their rights. Fed up with having a nonwhite president, states across the country...
Ummmmm it says those powers not ascribed to the feds are either the peoples or the states... so if you put your own private label on yer bazooka ... yer good. Why should the state get all the fun?
Actually I am a state's rights advocate for a lot of issues (especially guns) but what makes me skeptical of these folks is that they suddenly decided it's an important issue the day after election '08. If it were up to me people could own almost anything short of NBCs, landmines or cluster munitions.
That is complete bullshit. If you even bothered to read the article, you see that Fox News actually (rightly) lays the blame on George Bush as well Obama. This isn't a race issue, and you are a pathetic human being for making up that lie.
What part of, "skeptical of these folks" registers as a lie? It's not unreasonable to to think that these sudden converts to Constitutionally limited government might have more on their minds than reading the Bill of Rights.
Sometimes this new layout on Madville is really confusing. My comment about you lying was in response to your implication that this has to do with having a non-white President. It is completely unreasonable to link state's rights activists to racists (in other words, your lie), not to mention denigrating to those who truly had to fight to overcome racism.
Perhaps in your hurry to discredit these ideas, you missed the numerous statements in the article like these:
"This has been boiling for years, and it's finally come to a head," said Utah State Rep. Carl Wimmer. "With TARP and No Child Left Behind...
The power struggle between the states and Washington has cropped up periodically ever since the country was founded.
But the movement's rank and file are just as likely now to criticize Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, as they are the new president, pointing to what they believe were Bush's overreaching policies on education and homeland security.
...launch [TenthAmendmentCenter.com] after watching the Maine State Legislature fight the Department of Homeland Security on the Real ID act, a controversial Bush-era law...
They all clearly show this is not even slightly linked to Obama, and the idea of state's rights goes all the way back to the founding of the country, where Thomas Jefferson was already campaigning against federal power abuses.
The fact is that these people were not screaming when Dubya was trashing the Constitutional separation of powers and rights of Habeas Corpus. If they HAD been, I wouldn't be so skeptical of their motives.
Don't worry, in the future I'll try to avoid being a pathetic human being by agreeing with you. :)
They were screaming. I specifically pointed out the one web site that was started specifically because of Bush's "trashing the Constitutional separation of powers". So you complete argument is just another bullshit lie.
You never heard of them because the mainstream media never bothered to air their complaints. The only reason you hear about them now is because of Fox News' Republican leanings and the fact that the Democrats are in power. In fact, for many years states' rights were one of the Republican party's main political agendas (which is partly why they were so popular in the former Confederate states). Of course, now the Republican party is no better than the Democratic party on that issue (meet the new boss, same as the old boss).
The only reason you are pathetic is because you erroneously equate the states' rights to racism (a point you keep ignoring - probably because you know realize how pathetic that statement actually was). Even now, you still won't admit that it was a poor statement to make, you just keep trying to distract me and others who might read this. If you could ever present a logical response you might even be able to convince me of your point of view. However, arguments based on privileged knowledge, innuendo, and speculation (in other words, logical fallacies) are not convincing to anyone other than those already convinced.
Starting a web site and screaming loudly are two different matters. I'm not equating state's rights with racism, although the historical correlation is certainly there. I'm wondering why the issue is suddenly so dire. Many people have suddenly gotten religion who were telling those of us who WERE vocal at the time to shut up. It's not unreasonable to surmise that many are simply upset about having a black, Northern, urban president.
Starting a web site and screaming loudly are two different matters.
No, they aren't. In times past, people went door to door with petitions. They stood on corners and handed out home-printed newspapers. Now they create websites that can have nation-wide (and world-wide) members. Making such a statement just implies you are extremely out of touch with society today.
Fed up with having a nonwhite president, states across the country...
I'm not equating state's rights with racism...
Those are two direct quotes from you indicate opposite things. You absolutely equated these states' rights advocates with racists.
It's not unreasonable to surmise that many are simply upset about having a black, Northern, urban president.
It is entirely unreasonable, because the isn't a single shred of proof that these people care one whit that it is a black President (nor Northern, nor urban). You are simply doing the very thing Cuthulion did when Bush was President, and that is trying to silence any opposition against the current ruling party.
Silence them by saying I'm a bit skeptical of some of their motives? I guess I'm more influential than I realized!
No, silence them by equating them to racists, which you still won't admit to doing, and at the visibility level of Cuthulion.
No, I AM equating some of them with racism, or maybe I should say that I suspect their motives. Maybe they are not conscious, deliberate racists, but people who are afraid because they see someone who doesn't look like them or comes from a different background as a threat. What am I supposed to think when the very people who by and large (Fox "News", for instance along with many of its viewers) supported blatantly unconstitutional activities for eight years under one president are suddenly upset about perceived or entirely hypothetical abuses under the next one?
No, I AM equating some of them with racism, or maybe I should say that I suspect their motives. Maybe they are not conscious, deliberate racists, but people who are afraid because they see someone who doesn't look like them or comes from a different background as a threat.
No, you equated all of them to racists. Perhaps that wasn't your intent, but that is what you did. What is more, even Fox News is not racists simply because they dislike Obama (or more specifically, they dislike Democrats). A person can dislike another person of a different race without it being racist. Racism has nothing to do with this, and you should admit that.
What am I supposed to think when the very people who by and large (Fox "News", for instance along with many of its viewers) supported blatantly unconstitutional activities for eight years under one president are suddenly upset about perceived or entirely hypothetical abuses under the next one?
If you want to be suspicious of Fox News' motives with regards to promoting this story/political leaning, go right ahead and I won't say a word (I'd agree with you entirely, and in fact, I already have said so); but that is not what you have done at any point up until now, and it appears like you've just shoved your foot so deep in your mouth by claiming racism has a hand in this that you are desperate for any stance that makes you look like less than an fool. The correct term for what Fox News is doing is hypocrisy, not racism.
I'm not saying that racism has a hand in anything, I'm saying that I'M SUSPICIOUS OF THEIR MOTIVES. I am SPECULATING.
You wouldn't be experiencing a reaction formation, would you? Because help is available, should you need it.
I'm not saying that racism has a hand in anything...
So first you make racism claims, then say you didn't, then admit that you claim some of them might be racist, and now you are again claiming that you never said racism has anything to do with it? Perhaps you should make up your mind.
You wouldn't be experiencing a reaction formation, would you?
Apparently your medical training is as poor as your logic, because this does not qualify as reaction formation. There is no direct opposing tendency here, just basic facts and logic.
You're reading too much into things. Careful when you take any national exams. I am merely saying what my SUSPICIONS are. Now, that's hardly bullying. Perhaps you should look in the mirror for that.
You're reading too much into things. ... I am merely saying what my SUSPICIONS are.
Fed up with having a nonwhite president, states across the country...
There is only one way to read that, and it's as an unsupported accusation of racism.
Now, that's hardly bullying. Perhaps you should look in the mirror for that.
I never once said you were a bully, and refuting your statements with facts and logic is not bullying either.
I am no conservative, but I would like to see the 10th Amendment make a come back. I am not sure we need a Nanny federal government for every little thing. There has to be a balance between being part of a same nation, and having everything the same from State to State. I don't want it to get crazy, as in Slave States and Free States, but I see room for some level of diversity among the States.
Here's an e-high 5 from me to you.
I am saddened that Mr. Gramps is promoting a Civil War, state's rights shouting rebel and son of the Confederacy attitude. Mr, Gramps knows better than anyone that central federal control is essential to a socialist state. In order to correct things Obama must hire an army of unionized, progressive voting government employees to control and oversee each and every aspect of every citizen's life.
Like most sane people, I don't want a socialist state.
I am a free market kind of guy, but with enough regulation to provide a level playing field and to prevent the kind of cheating that ruined the market under the 'leadership' of your Hero.
In the words of Borat, "High Five!
metallic
Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer recently signed into law a bill authorizing the state's gun manufacturers to produce "Made in Montana" firearms, without seeking licensing from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Similar laws are being considered in Utah, Alaska, Texas and Tennessee.
I would hate to be the test case for that. If the courts rule that the Montana legislature is wrong, the repercussions for the offender are going to be quite severe. The BATF has kind of become a law unto themselves, delegated certain powers to create firearm policy that then carries the force of law. But I think the Federal Government will wield the Interstate Commerce clause like a club and clobber the hell out of the "offender" when it does come to court.