It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:32 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Author Message
PatGreen
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:32 pm 
Offline
PP Quarterback

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 1836
If i recall correctly, a strong federal government was exactly what the founding fathers tried to avoid...


Top
 Profile  
 
CriminallyVu1gar
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:20 pm 
Offline
Captain Dynasty
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:56 pm
Posts: 16859
Well the founding fathers did need to work hard to unite the many cultural and regional influences in the United States to conduct a war of independence with England. And they outlined Federal powers in the Constitution (along with states rights). My interpretation of accounts from that era is that the goal was balancing strengths, not a strength or a weakness in one area or another. I guess "strong" is a bit of a relative term.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:41 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
Crosscheck wrote:
A strong federal government certainly wasn't one of our founding principles.

It certainly was. And perhaps CV is right in stressing the relative nature of strong, but the central goal was replacing the Articles of Confederation which made the central government too weak. But our first two parties were the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The Federalists (including people like Madison and Hamilton) won that battle. I don't think there's much disagreement with that. Yes, Jefferson and others stressed not granting too much power to the national government, but his side gave n way more than the Federalists.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:00 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
In fact, the two most important events between the Revolutionary War and the writing of the Constitution as far as the strength of the national government were Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts, and the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Both cases had to do with people trying to rebel against national tax policies. Both were put d.own by the government by force. So I don't see how anyone could make the argument that the "founding fathers" would be for some Republicans' version of states rights where, for example, states would refuse to enact the Affordable Care Act. All the evidence I see says they would have sent in the army to Florida or whatever state tried to do such a thing


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:17 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
Now that I think about it, Whiskey Rebellion came after the Constitution when George Washington was in office. He still crushed it though.


Top
 Profile  
 
NYIntensity
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:20 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 4463
CriminallyVu1gar wrote:
Not to mention the argument fails to take into account the fact that many LGBT are minors and are incapable of moving.


Really? If that's true, then what have we been putting in the water the past 30-40 years to "make more gays"?

_________________
ksquier89 wrote:
Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:23 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
NYIntensity wrote:
CriminallyVu1gar wrote:
Not to mention the argument fails to take into account the fact that many LGBT are minors and are incapable of moving.


Really? If that's true, then what have we been putting in the water the past 30-40 years to "make more gays"?

WTF does that mean? If it's a joke, I don't think it's funny. If not, you might want to realize that the percentage of gays hasn't changed. They just used to be too petrified to tell anyone.


Top
 Profile  
 
NYIntensity
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:16 am 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 4463
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
NYIntensity wrote:
CriminallyVu1gar wrote:
Not to mention the argument fails to take into account the fact that many LGBT are minors and are incapable of moving.


Really? If that's true, then what have we been putting in the water the past 30-40 years to "make more gays"?

WTF does that mean? If it's a joke, I don't think it's funny. If not, you might want to realize that the percentage of gays hasn't changed. They just used to be too petrified to tell anyone.


That's exactly the point I'm making. That statistically speaking, the number of LGBT minors is inconsequential, and bears no statistical significance.

That said, why does it seem like you get offended by everything?

_________________
ksquier89 wrote:
Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:59 am 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
Got offended by that because I totally missed a pretty good joke that I would made myself there. I'm not sure why because it reads as obvious irony now. You put the quotes in there and everything. The 30-40 years thing confused me since we were talking about young people. Sorry for that one at the least if not other over-reactions.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:09 am 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
And I didn't mean to be so negative in responding to your post about money spent on the Romney campaign NYI. I totally agree it's cool that billionaire idiots poured millions into that crappy candidate for nothing. I just wish that money was going more different places. But I apologize for that too.


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:37 am 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7475
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
But our first two parties were the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The Federalists (including people like Madison and Hamilton) won that battle. I don't think there's much disagreement with that. Yes, Jefferson and others stressed not granting too much power to the national government, but his side gave n way more than the Federalists.

So Madison and Hamilton would approve of what's going on now?
The TSA, the PATRIOT act and the ACA?

uh huh.

Let's step back for a moment and look at the big picture

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
NYIntensity
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 8:56 am 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 4463
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
And I didn't mean to be so negative in responding to your post about money spent on the Romney campaign NYI. I totally agree it's cool that billionaire idiots poured millions into that crappy candidate for nothing. I just wish that money was going more different places. But I apologize for that too.


At least we're on the same page - and no harm, no foul. I share the same sentiment...I wish money had gone to starving people or something else.

_________________
ksquier89 wrote:
Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:54 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
Crosscheck wrote:
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
But our first two parties were the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The Federalists (including people like Madison and Hamilton) won that battle. I don't think there's much disagreement with that. Yes, Jefferson and others stressed not granting too much power to the national government, but his side gave n way more than the Federalists.

So Madison and Hamilton would approve of what's going on now?
The TSA, the PATRIOT act and the ACA?

uh huh.

Let's step back for a moment and look at the big picture

That's not what I meant to stress as much as that they were most definitely for a strong federal government. I don't know what they would have thought about say TSA or the Patriot Act. I think that's a little different because in those cases, we're more talking about individual rights than states' rights. I definitely think the founders wanted to balance individual freedom vs. strong government, but I'm not so sure they were as concerned with balancing state vs. federal power, where they wanted a stronger national government.


Top
 Profile  
 
Squanto
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:25 pm 
Offline
Carlos Spicy-Wiener
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 9240
Location: FAP TURBO
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:45 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7475
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
Oh shit...I found out why Obama didn't get my vote. I'm not in ANY of his targeted constituencies.
Damn

Image

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron