DUmmy Horse with no Brain, still confined to that dusty, crappy trailer park in Texas, wants to talk about states' rights. After all, she has a minor in history. In the process of exposing a "minor" as a meaningless academic term, she also shows herself to be ignorant of the most basic concepts of American government.
Horse with no Name (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-26-11 12:00 AM
Original message
So, if we are going to leave important decisions to the States
because that is more politically convenient than actually taking a stand on anything (so now I am guessing the rumors that everytime there was an important vote in the State Senate in Illinois that Obama went to the bathroom, but I digress...)
What does this really mean?
Is this setting up an actual physical divide of the red/blue states?
Does this mean we are going to break down ideological lines?Civil War?
I mean seriously. Right now, I can live in Texas because there is some semblance of federal laws protecting me from the whims of these batshit crazy republicans...but if those protections cease to exist...I'll be on the first train out.
I have a minor in History but am trying to remember why these are the UNITED STATES of AMERICA...why we federalized...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1364520You'd think that anyone studying American history, or even the randomly capitalized "History", especially someone with one of those coveted minors, would have bumped into the United States Constitution somewhere along the line. Political convenience is hardly the reason states have the constitutional right to make lots of important decisions. Hard to imagine, but Pam Dawson probably has a better understanding of American government than Horse with no Brain.
But more to the point, where does Horse with no Brain stand with her planned relocation from the dusty, crappy Texas trailer park to a rundown, falling apart, abandoned, ramshackle farmhouse? That's far more interesting than her minor in history.
csziggy (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-26-11 12:07 AM
Response to Original message
1. The US already went through a test of leaving human rights to the states
Back in the mid-1800s. It got us one civil war. We won't survive another one, though sometimes I wonder if we deserve to remain as a country at all.
From an earlier post of mine:
Why do we have a federal constitution with a bill of rights?
After all, if the President believes, "The states should determine for themselves how best to uphold the rights of their own citizens," maybe we don't need a set of documents to insure equal rights across all the states. Maybe each state should consider individual rights independently.
That statement, if really from Obama, is the most discouraging comment I have heard from him, even though it is in the context of a victory for equal rights for one of our most harassed groups. No wonder women's rights are being taken away state by state with no resistance from the federal government.
Human rights should not be determined state by state. If it is a RIGHT, it should be equal across ALL our states.
Have you noticed that DUmbasses (and ronbots) fiercely defend the right of states to legalize dope dealing, but in any other matters they should bow to the wisdom of the unwashed, unproductive, useless masses of democrats on the coasts and in the hellhole cities.
Horse with no Name (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-26-11 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. And the state attacks on the abortion providers
even though abortion is legal under federal law...nothing is being done to the states that are making it impossible to provide the services.
THESE are the functions of the federal government and the laws should be upheld by the DOJ...because I care a hell of a lot more about women being denied a federally protected medical procedure than I do about John Edwards being prosecuted.
I think Horse with no Brain would be doing her DOTY campaign a favor if she returned to her "stupid daughter" storyline.
That one was really working well.
csziggy (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-26-11 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Exactly, and these are the issues one which I am most disappointed
In the Obama administration, in the DOJ, and in the Democratic Party. They are not standing up for women, they have not stood up for marriage equality, they are not standing up for minorities who are being targeted in the "illegal immigration" boondoggle.
I had really hoped that Obama, with his past in community work and with a background in constitutional law, would restore the rule of law in this country and support individual rights. I've been underwhelmed by the change.
Yeah, you would think that an inexperienced community organizer, advanced by affirmative action through the corrupt Chicago democat machine, whose academic record is as tightly guarded a secret as the circumstances of his birth, would fundamentally change the most powerful nation on earth by smoothly reading from a teleprompter.
Angry Dragon (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-26-11 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
3. Perhaps Obama is not up to the task of being president
He surrounds himself with friends and big business and listens to no one else.
He talks pretty and stands on the sidelines most of the time
When was the last time he stood and really fought for something, even if it was something you did not agree with??
DUmmy Angry Dragon was on a winning streak with his first sentence, then proceeded to screw the whole thing up.
