Slateman Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 So you approve of the federal government deciding to arbitrarily override whatever local laws the current party in power doesn't like, even if those laws were voted on and supported by the local population? And please don't give me the "well DC isn't a state" semantics. The point is larger than that. When I believe they are blatantly unconstitutional, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 And please don't give me the "well DC isn't a state" semantics. The point is larger than that. Do we have any issue of them doing this elsewhere? As far as I can tell the federal government, as of lately, has kind of let the states do their own thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Well, with DC they do have the right to do it.. but they shouldn't. they should remove government intervention and foster personal responsibility by allowing actions to have consequence, good or bad. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 When I believe they are blatantly unconstitutional, yes. Isn't that for the courts to decide? Thought that was the whole idea of checks and balances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Isn't that for the courts to decide? Thought that was the whole idea of checks and balances. The courts take far too long and, frankly, it costs money. Think about Indiana's new law. The courts will now have to wait until someone sues, then there will be appeals. It will costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a law off the book that may, or may not, be unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Well, with DC they do have the right to do it.. but they shouldn't. they should remove government intervention and foster personal responsibility by allowing actions to have consequence, good or bad. ~Bang You don't think the federal government, given its unique relationship with the district, has a right to retain control? Keeping in mind I'm talking generally about control... I'm not cool with a specific party using that control to push their specific agenda on the area. I'm also not really attached to either idea, I'm just genuinely curious how you justify "it shouldn't be". The district is unlike any other area in the country due to how much of it is specifically dedicated to the federal government and it being the nation's capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 You don't think the federal government, given its unique relationship with the district, has a right to retain control? Keeping in mind I'm talking generally about control... I'm not cool with a specific party using that control to push their specific agenda on the area. I'm also not really attached to either idea, I'm just genuinely curious how you justify "it shouldn't be". The district is unlike any other area in the country due to how much of it is specifically dedicated to the federal government and it being the nation's capital. I think the district is not what is was intended to be, in that now it is a permanent home to a lot of people who have no representation, and yet are expected to pay taxes. I think given how it's set up, the federal government has the right to retain control and until it's changed, they should. But if you are the party of 'no government intrusion' and you keep intruding government on private lives, it's beyond hypocritical. I think given the way the District is set up, they should listen to what the people have to say when they vote for their referendums and then follow the will of the people. but instead they said, oh, you voted for that? No. You can't have it. (the fact it's over religion is even a bigger joke. Somehow conservatism has come to mean "Christians only") To keep our agenda of religious fanaticism ahead of smaller government, we will remove laws that have been properly decided by the people of the district. How that jives at all with what conservatism stands for, I am still waiting to hear. these tea Party jackoffs keep screaming about nanny state, shrinking the government, expanding personal liberty, and getting government out of our lives. And yet this is what they do. Folks keep giving me the same "dems do it too" whine, and i do not CARE. That does nothing to absolve what i'm saying. Let the dems clean their own house, and focus on cleaning the conservative house. Saying "LOOK! They're as BAD as WE are" still means YOU'RE BAD. and they don't seem to get this. the fact the other guy is also bad makes them somehow feel as if they're own malfeasance is OK. My neighbors have a messy house. So i should never clean mine? if a person identifies as a conservative, and they watch conservatives act not at ALL like conservatives and yet would still defend it, i will go back to my box of very stupid hammers analogy. This person is NOT a conservative, they are a cheerleader who doesn't care what his chosen team does, they can completely go against everything conservatism stands for, and still will find a way to reason it out.. they need to face facts. They are not part of the political process. They're simply pawns, doing what they're told. they are demanding nothing of their leaders. They are not concerned about the truth of conservatism being washed over by all this. They are enabling government intrusion, encouraging a nanny state. given the district is the only place they really have this power, and given it's not been used in 23 years, and the fact the last time it was also conservatives who stepped in.. the moment they're in they start controlling what people can and can't do despite their display of will. from the article: a quote from a Republican from Utah, who can't see DC from his house except in the short periods of time he spends there in session. “Most of my focus is not on Washington, D.C., but when they tend to step over the line, we’re going to do what we need to do,” Chaffetz said. “We have other tools at our disposal. That’s what the mayor and others need to remember. We’re not bashful about using those tools either.” Seriously,, this is NOT conservatism. This is government control over personal decisions, exactly what they rail against. A conservative believes "THE LINE" is where the PEOPLE decide it is. (Actually, my typo just showed a nifty little thing,, swapping the first two vowels shows who they are .. they are not 'conservative", they are CENSORvative. If a person is conservative, this should bother them. If they're a flag waving tea party brick-brain, then they cheer for it. I identify as center right, but by even criticizing the GOP for not at all behaving like conservatives gets one labelled as biased. I am. I am biased against bull****, and since the only party i have ever belonged to IS the GOP, then it bothers me even more to see what a crock of **** these fanatics have turned conservatism into. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 DC has a larger population than at least one state iirc, maybe two. There is no reason for them to remain without representation. Right now they exist at the whim of elected officials that do not answer to that population and can use them to score political point with their own. Whatever the initial plan for DC was, there is a sizeable population there now. They deserve the same imaginary voice in government the rest if is tell ourselves we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 i was more interested in the general issue of whether congress should have control, not whether you're ok with their current excercising of control. the gripes of the power of the purse strings seem to only come out when the power is used to do something the people griping don't like. if you're ok with the power of the purse strings, then you need to be ok with that power being used even when it's doing something you don't like. otherwise, get rid of it as a tool. (i don't think that's going to happen, people on both sides love using that control when it suits their agenda.) DC just seems to be a very unique situation compared to the rest of the country. If control is given back to them, like states are, then do they just get control over non-federal areas? IE: Does federal government retain control over the numerous federal buildings/grounds in the area? It seems a little more complicated than "stomping on the will of the people", even if that's how many people choose to describe it. The fact that people also live there doesn't really seem like a strong argument that DC doesn't have a very unique situation, in regards to the federal government, and as such may be justifiable treated differently than, say, a typical state would be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 i was more interested in the general issue of whether congress should have control, not whether you're ok with their current excercising of control. It makes sense for the Federal government to have control in areas that effect the federal government and operation of the country. Does this? I suppose you could say the Federal government wants the government to have the right to hire and fire federal workers based on religious beliefs. Mind you, that sounds kinda unconstitutional to me. You know, government deciding which religious ethos is top dog and using it to control hiring and firing. There are places where DC rule could step over the line and prevent or make federal function difficult. The question is that line that effects the proper functioning of the country in the right of DC residents to smoke pot, use condoms, or own a certain kind of gun in their homes? Seems to me that none of these are areas of conflict between the operation of the federal government and the wishes of DC residents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 my point's not even about DC. It's simply this in a nutshell. they say they are the party of less government, more personal responsibility, more liberty and freedom. And given the small petri dish that DC is, they prove beyond a shadow of any doubt that they are NOT. And that's really it. DC's political structure and how it is governed are another topic. Congress is in control, and the exercising of this power is rare. But it seems that the ones exercising the governmental control are the ones screaming to the top of the mountain that they are steadfastly against government overreach. (last time it was used..was also used by the Republicans trying to prevent gays from having any rights in 1992.) Republican controlled congress, voted in on anti-government rhetoric, stepping in to play nanny and denying rights. it stinks. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 my point's not even about DC. It's simply this in a nutshell. they say they are the party of less government, more personal responsibility, more liberty and freedom. And given the small petri dish that DC is, they prove beyond a shadow of any doubt that they are NOT. And that's really it. DC's political structure and how it is governed are another topic. Congress is in control, and the exercising of this power is rare. But it seems that the ones exercising the governmental control are the ones screaming to the top of the mountain that they are steadfastly against government overreach. (last time it was used..was also used by the Republicans trying to prevent gays from having any rights in 1992.) Republican controlled congress, voted in on anti-government rhetoric, stepping in to play nanny and denying rights. it stinks. ~Bang They're reducing DC government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 It makes sense for the Federal government to have control in areas that effect the federal government and operation of the country. Does this? I suppose you could say the Federal government wants the government to have the right to hire and fire federal workers based on religious beliefs. Mind you, that sounds kinda unconstitutional to me. You know, government deciding which religious ethos is top dog and using it to control hiring and firing. There are places where DC rule could step over the line and prevent or make federal function difficult. The question is that line that effects the proper functioning of the country in the right of DC residents to smoke pot, use condoms, or own a certain kind of gun in their homes? Seems to me that none of these are areas of conflict between the operation of the federal government and the wishes of DC residents. Right. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Where is that line, and how should it be changed? What control should DC have? The comments I'm reading are essentially - DC is taxed without representation, and congress should not overstep the "will of the people" Except those are really broad criticisms, being focused on a very narrow set of circumstances, when the entire issue is much, much more complicated. Where does "the will of the people" end in terms of the federal governments need to have a certain level of control over the nations capital? I guess my point is - just because you don't like what the current power structure is doing, doesn't mean the right answer is to remove the power structure (or significantly change it.) That can be a dangerous solution... Admittedly I'm not well versed enough in DC politics and the federal government's presence/need over the area, so I'm playing devil's advocate but am doing a terrible job because I have nothing but open ended questions. I was (and still am) kind of hoping someone who has more understand, and see's what I'm saying, would jump in and maybe provide specific examples of why DC cannot/shouldn't be given complete control... Maybe they don't exist in the modern day... Republican controlled congress, voted in on anti-government rhetoric, stepping in to play nanny and denying rights. it stinks. ~Bang Right, you don't like the current incarnation of the GOP. Duly noted. I don't either. But I cannot stand when people start arguing for significant change in structure simply because they don't agree with how the ones currently in charge are using that structure. I'm more interested in whether the current structure has legitimacy or not, not whether you like/dislike republicans using it to block smoking pot or whatever this current ridiculousness is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 nvm. Burgold beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I think the line is pretty simple, Tshille. Does a law passed by the people of DC endanger national security? If not, hands off. (And even the definition of national security can be pretty broad) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Right, you don't like the current incarnation of the GOP. Duly noted. I don't either. But I cannot stand when people start arguing for significant change in structure simply because they don't agree with how the ones currently in charge are using that structure. I'm more interested in whether the current structure has legitimacy or not, not whether you like/dislike republicans using it to block smoking pot or whatever this current ridiculousness is about. I'm not arguing about the structure. My argument is very simple. if you claim to be the party of less government intrusion, and you use your power to intrude upon provate lives for no other reason than your social agenda (which is something that doesn't at all jive with 'conservatism' in the first place), then what does that say for the party? My problem has nothing to do with DC. It just happens to be that DC is where they have the powers to exercise this sort of nanny state crap. If they had the power to strike down other state's laws regarding these issues, I think they would without hesitation, because here in the district where they DO have the power. they've wasted no time in doing exactly what they claim to be against. And further, while claiming to be conservative, they have made it plainly clear that this is what they want to do wherever they are. Which again, flies directly in the face of old fashioned conservative personal responsibility and minimal government intrusion planks. And this is my issue. I want other conservatives to wake the F up to what these fanatics are and why they should not vote for them. Unfortunately, they are the ones who get the funding, and they get it because the cheerleaders never demand better,, through the ballot box or otherwise. the cheerleaders accept their marching orders without question. Questioning gets one labeled as a liberal or a RINO or a biased person. They beat the drum as they're told to beat it. They point and scream and accept the removal of freedom and governmental overstep.. because team is all that matters. And, the gist of the article is completely about 'this current ridiculousness', and only partly about DC's being chained to whatever politics are in charge. The gist of my aggravation is that it yet again is a complete reversal of say vs do, and supposed conservatives who can't tell the difference between a spring shower and a bucket of piss. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Bang obviously feels passionately about what has happened to the GOP and he makes good points here. It’s hard to imagine any free thinking person would not support a law that stops employers from firing someone because they take birth control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 As far as DC's autonomy goes,, i recognize it's not so simple, and this system is the one in place. I think steps should be made to give the people of the district a voice that has a vote. I do realize that the way DC was set up is not what it is now, and one thing that is a fact is you can't turn back time and throw everyone out and try and re-establish the city as nothing but the seat of government and not a home to so many people. But now it is, and I think efforts should be made to roll with the times. People who pay taxes should have representation. That is American core. one other thing the conservatives always say is that once you have power, or a gov't program, just try to get rid of it. It's impossible to shrink government because everyone wants to hold on to what they have had. Seems to me to be a prime opportunity to show you mean it, and start making the steps towards giving DC it's voice.And if they DID do these things, then maybe they could really show the moderates and undecideds that they mean business for actual conservatism, and not the"social agenda". ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 the gripes of the power of the purse strings seem to only come out when the power is used to do something the people griping don't like. if you're ok with the power of the purse strings, then you need to be ok with that power being used even when it's doing something you don't like. otherwise, get rid of it as a tool. (i don't think that's going to happen, people on both sides love using that control when it suits their agenda.) Sorry, but no, there is no rule that says one must either support abuse of power, or demand that said power not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Sorry, but no, there is no rule that says one must either support abuse of power, or demand that said power not exist. Uh... i don't disagree with you. The context of the conversation we were having has nothing to do with that. It has to do with people wanting to change how a system works because their $preferred_party isn't in control and the other guys are doing something they don't like. (which, was cleared up as the conversation went on... you're cherry picking one paragraph out of a string of them as part of a back and forth on a specific issue - congress' control over DC...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Uh... i don't disagree with you. The context of the conversation we were having has nothing to do with what that. It has to do with people wanting to change how a system works because their $preferred_party isn't in control and the other guys are doing something they don't like. Oh, so you were arguing with a straw man? Sorry. My mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 No, i was having a conversation with two people that started with one of them saying: "Well, with DC they do have the right to do it.. but they shouldn't. they should remove government intervention and foster personal responsibility by allowing actions to have consequence, good or bad" It's on the previous page... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 No, i was having a conversation with two people that started with one of them saying: "Well, with DC they do have the right to do it.. but they shouldn't. they should remove government intervention and foster personal responsibility by allowing actions to have consequence, good or bad" It's on the previous page... Which is 1) not in any way similar to the straw man you constructed 2) and is, in fact, the correct way to judge these actions. It's not whether the power exists. It's whether they're being abused. (And they are). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Which is 1) not in any way similar to the straw man you constructed 2) and is, in fact, the correct way to judge these actions. It's not whether the power exists. It's whether they're being abused. (And they are). Except that the statement was that the power shouldn't exist, hence my post. We then continued to converse on the subject and cleared each others positions on it. Sorry to spoil your opportunity to jump in and do your thing. Well, you did it anyway, you just did it late and well after the conversation has come to an end... for some reason pretending the rest of the conversation didn't happen. edit: it's entirely possible you're reading earlier posts differently than I am, that's why I'm confused about why you jumped in with that. like i said earlier, i don't disagree with your original statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 No, i was having a conversation with two people that started with one of them saying: "Well, with DC they do have the right to do it.. but they shouldn't. they should remove government intervention and foster personal responsibility by allowing actions to have consequence, good or bad" It's on the previous page... I think you misunderstood. Sorry about that. I mean they should not DO it.. not necessarily that they should not have the power. They have the power to do it, but they should not DO it.. They should not step in, and they should stick to their tenet of non intervention and personal responsibility. They can exercise the power by not doing anything. The congress should not change the law the people voted on. Changing the structure is not what i'm on about at all. Hope that helps make more sense out of my ramblings. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.