GibbsFactor Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 To a degree, I think that the labels Conservative and Liberal have also become a fiction. People, usually their opponents hang whatever they don't like in the other category and spend way to much time defining the other group. I don't think we lie somewhere on a line between Conservative and liberal, but rather most of us are a scatterplot of "conservative" and "liberal" ideas.The label crap is misleading and only useful for rallying the troops and stirring up anger. That should go unsaid though. Tell me one person that wants nothing to change, then show me another that wants EVERYTHING to change. Those people don't exist. Two sectors of division is not enough to form any conclusive group. I worked in Ron Paul's PCC and voted for Barack Obama. I think someone needs to sit down and figure out why we are classified by these two groups and then try to define them. I bet 75% of us would find that we are more in line with each other then we'd ever dream. Bottom line is that we all want what we think is best for ourselves, our families and our fellow neighbors, countrymen and the rest of the people of Earth. Bickering back in forth because we've joined an Elephant gang or a Donkey gang are dark ages activities. Yet we, the civilized lot, continue to do it. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 That should go unsaid though.Tell me one person that wants nothing to change, then show me another that wants EVERYTHING to change. Those people don't exist. Two sectors of division is not enough to form any conclusive group. I worked in Ron Paul's PCC and voted for Barack Obama. I think someone needs to sit down and figure out why we are classified by these two groups and then try to define them. I bet 75% of us would find that we are more in line with each other then we'd ever dream. Bottom line is that we all want what we think is best for ourselves, our families and our fellow neighbors, countrymen and the rest of the people of Earth. Bickering back in forth because we've joined an Elephant gang or a Donkey gang are dark ages activities. Yet we, the civilized lot, continue to do it. :doh: Good Post!:applause::applause::applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 suddenly this gets a little more interesting.... Other states are following suit and entering bills/resolutions that claim their states sovergnty under the 10th ammendment. I wonder how far these will get? Az http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm MO http://www.dailypaul.com/node/81555 OK http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=119309; WA http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Hey that's great, next time some disaster hits your state don't come crying to the federal government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 Hey that's great, next time some disaster hits your state don't come crying to the federal government. Sure! I take it you disagree with the resolutions? Could you describe on what grounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Remember. Libertarians and Liberals share one thing. Their unbridled love of liberty. Notice how there's not a hint of the word liberty in "conservative" Do you really think that's an accident? I wouldn't say unbridled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I'm fine with the resolutions if there's a 1 to 1 ratio to the amount of federal money coming in and out of the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 I'm fine with the resolutions if there's a 1 to 1 ratio to the amount of federal money coming in and out of the state. I dont know about the other states mentioned, but NH is known to have the lowest dependency on Federal $ of all the states. Persoanlly, no federal money should be coming into a state. That is how the feds extort states into complying with their laws. (ie: seatbelt and drug laws ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Dont tell Lincoln. F Lincoln!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I dont know about the other states mentioned, but NH is known to have the lowest dependency on Federal $ of all the states.Persoanlly, no federal money should be coming into a state. That is how the feds extort states into complying with there laws. (ie: seatbelt and drug laws ) That's probably why NH is pushing this, Alaska would be totally screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I enjoy being evil This proves it... Satan was a liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 That's probably why NH is pushing this, Alaska would be totally screwed. when you really look at it. It's a darned shame that these resolutions even need to be introduced. What ever happened to the times when it was clearly understood that States are sovergn and that there are clear enumerated powers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 suddenly this gets a little more interesting....Other states are following suit and entering bills/resolutions that claim their states sovergnty under the 10th ammendment. I wonder how far these will get? Az http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm MO http://www.dailypaul.com/node/81555 OK http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=119309; WA http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009 No Vermont yet? I'd expect them to be one of the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wiggles Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I dont know about the other states mentioned, but NH is known to have the lowest dependency on Federal $ of all the states.Persoanlly, no federal money should be coming into a state. That is how the feds extort states into complying with their laws. (ie: seatbelt and drug laws ) Your right, they did the same thing in Louisiana when I lived there 12 years ago. Unfortunately LA didn't have the luxury that NH and other states have now. I still doubt this ever happens. States Rights died with Picketts charge at Gettysburg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 Your right, they did the same thing in Louisiana when I lived there 12 years ago. Unfortunately LA didn't have the luxury that NH and other states have now. I still doubt this ever happens. States Rights died with Picketts charge at Gettysburg. Things may be a bit different now. I have no clue if the free state project (a massive effort to relocate libertarian/small federal government families into NH) is starting to yield results, but if that effort has taken even a partial root, we could actually see this resolution passed (NH only though) I read somewhere that with a mere 200k liberty friendly voters relocated into NH, the liberty voting block would be large enough to pass most of their ideas into law. Also, most dont realize it, but NH is one of the few states in the union that has very specific seccession language already in their state constitution. Really the NH resolution is just a rehash of that stance.:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 No Vermont yet? I'd expect them to be one of the first. Vermont doesn't play: They'll just succeed from the nation altogether.. I'd move to a libertarian friendly state if if was a skosh more south... I'm a lazy freedom-fighter. South Carolina = way more libertarian friendly... not so much a dependence on "themans" heating oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 Vermont doesn't play: They'll just succeed from the nation altogether..I'd move to a libertarian friendly state if if was a skosh more south... I'm a lazy freedom-fighter. South Carolina = way more libertarian friendly... not so much a dependence on "themans" heating oil. You just pinpointed the precise reason I am moving to SC. (I'm actually here already and my family will follow after we sell the house in KY) I really like Sanford as governor and I the taxes are better. NH is just too darned cold for me to move there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 This proves it... Satan was a liberal. As was Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.