Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paul_of_TX on May 1, 2012 at 8:42am

I'm in 100% agreement with you on the stupid laws our state has. It is just a hold over from a time dominated by a certain type of very vocal (and annoying) Baptists. I think we will eventually get rid of those stupid laws but even if we did it today it wouldn't be soon enough. Personally I don't care if a county decides it wants to be dry or not since that is more local and easier to change. Lubbock was dry when I went to school there mid to late 90's but now it has changed and alcohol can be bought. When I was a freshman at Tech we referred to Lubbock as the big shiny buckle of the Bible Belt.

Maybe the bigger crime is that those with such a lack of talent as Nugent and the Dixie Chicks are the ones being paid to make music for the rest of us to listen to. I don't really understand your point number 2. Has our society after years of everybody wins and gets a trophy mentality come to the point where when someone says something we don't like we are supposed to still like them. The Dixie Chicks are free to say what they want to say. Country music fans are also free to say what they want to say and to buy what they want to buy. In that whole scenario I see everyone expressing their freedoms. Which of those freedoms do you have a problem with? You could say your points are a bit hypocritical 1)we should have the freedom to do what we want 2)people shouldn't have the freedom to dislike the Dixie Chicks.

I think one big major difference is that Ted Nugent is pleading guilty and admitting he did something wrong. He did something wrong and is not looking for a technicality to find a way out. He is facing the consequences of his actions. The Dixie Chicks got upset because they had to live with the consequences of their actions. When you boil it all down that is a major difference between the left and right.

Permalink Reply by LShieldes on May 1, 2012 at 9:14am

I don't have problems with freedoms, I have problems with listening to hypocrital people who claim that they don't want to hear about politics from entertainers, but really only about the politics that they don't want to hear. And if it is politics that they don't agree with, then the entertainers are then flawed, even if you really actually do enjoy the work that has nothing to do with the politics.  But becaise your politics are so emotional you have to convince yourself that now you don't like their work.

 

I can't stand Nugents politics and I think he is getting to be a major black eye for hunting, but I still like Stranglehold.  I don't agree with Fred Thompsons politics, but I like many of the roles he has played.  Sean Penn and Tim Robbins can be even too left and freaked out for me, doesn't change the fact that they are great actors.  Tom Cruise has completely lost it with his cult, but I like his movies.  I still go to see Charlie Daniels play(damn good shows), even if I have to sit through some of the shit he says.

 

So yeah, it isn't about freedom, it is about at least me thinking these people are just hypocritical, it isn't that you say something or do something, it is that you do so in a way that I don't like.

Permalink Reply by Brandon Michael on May 1, 2012 at 8:59am

1. Maybe Texas lawmakers realize that they are weak but also realize that trying to overturn God's law makes for a bad campaign in the setting for Good Christian Bitches. Also, blue laws are state and not federal.

2. W was appointed by God and Obama is a Muslim terrorist that was trained in Kenyan madrasah to destroy America with socialism and race baiting. How can you not see the difference?

3. As for Michelle Obama...well, it's just not okay to be right for the wrong reasons.

Permalink Reply by LShieldes on May 1, 2012 at 9:23am

You know that is another I don't get.  How is a law overbearing, socialist, horrible and any other bad words when federal, but if state or local then it is suddenly just fine?

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on May 1, 2012 at 9:39am

State's rights! Yar!

(Annoying - not the concept, that's fine, but its overuse as a republican trope)

Usually, they will claim it is not the law they don't like, but that it is the federal government stepping over what their individual interpretation of the constitution says it can do (not the Supreme court's interpretation mind you...). Personally, I think 8 out of 10 times, that is just their own self justification that allows them to argue against a law they don't like, without having to admit they really don't like the law. 

Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on May 2, 2012 at 12:38am

I don't remember hearing anyone leaning right hiding his antipathies about a law, whether or not they think it constitutional. What are some of your best examples of Republican shenanigans? What laws were they pretending to like or at least to be indifferent to, meanwhile secretly plotting to consider them unconstitutional?

Permalink Reply by Paul_of_TX on May 1, 2012 at 9:53am

"How is a law overbearing, socialist, horrible and any other bad words when federal, but if state or local then it is suddenly just fine?"

Mainly because of the Constitution. I know you leftists don't like the damn thing but we still use it despite your objections.

The Constitution limits the federal government not so much the state government. Things are easier to change at the state and local level. Like my example of Lubbock above. It was a stupid local law and the citizens got tired of it and changed it. Gov Perry wanted to cram the Trans Texas Corridor down our throats and we at the state level were able to stop it. Citizens have a lot more power at state and local levels.

Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on May 2, 2012 at 12:36am

I think liberals automatically want power to be centralized in the hands of gov't. It does not occur them that it's a bad thing that people feel helpless in face of a massive federal gov't, far away & removed from any accountability. Nor does it occur to them it's a good thing that states can sometimes succeed in defending themselves from the onslaught of federal regulation. -- Then there are the liberals who think liberals are both stupid & corrupt, who talk about participatory democracy, communitarianism, & whatnot. -- Well, the states & localities, if they had any power, they would be communities of the self-governing, self-reliant, &c.!

Permalink Reply by ARK on May 3, 2012 at 7:52pm

Yes, let's get rid of the FAA. I mean, there's inhumane iron-fisted fascism for you, and there's nothing in the Constitution that gives the government the authority to regulate air travel. Far better to free Americans from the shackles of tyranny. Far more efficient for airlines to have to comply with 50 different sets of state-level air travel safety regulations. 

Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on May 4, 2012 at 3:52pm

I think your liberal hysteria is slipping - you should be accusing me of racism, secession, & wanting to destroy the country or something like that. National standards, for example on tariffs, are a matter as old as the nation. Unless I happened to be rooting for the Lost Cause or the English, how in hell would I in principle reject national standards? - There's a thought, why don't you accuse me of secret monarchism? It worked when hacks wanted to take Hamilton down & I'd be flattered for the company, we'd both be happy...

I'm not sure anyone needs to get rid of the FAA. But with your kind of insanity America was blessed with the CAB for quite a while. It was a miserable misery, but it made liberals happy. I wonder whether liberals committed suicide when Carter started deregulation. How purposeless there lives must have seemed, of a sudden; how cruel that one of their own betray them... 

Permalink Reply by ARK on May 4, 2012 at 4:23pm

So it's not an injustice for the federal government to impose  aviation standards and practices, but it was an injustice when the federal government had the audacity to tell states they couldn't let human beings be bought and sold like cattle? (Since you mention racism and secession). 

 

I don't know what you mean by "my" kind of insanity. The CAB was a terrible idea and I can't think of any serious person on the left or the right who would endorse it today. 

Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on May 4, 2012 at 4:39pm

You would not endorse it today? How big of you. I take it you would not endorse slavery today either, another bad idea. Funny how these things happen. Why a generation from now future liberals will be able to say the same thing about many other cretinous liberal ideas.

As for slavery, I believe the federal gov't had the power to deal with slavery under the Constitution. The Constitutional compromise about not banning the slave trade for the first 20 years implies the power to ban it thereafter - & banned it was; this implies a general power that could be brought to bear against slavery. -- I do not think that every injustice is against the letter of the Constitution, because the Constitution is not perfect; I also do not think that most injustices have Constitutional remedies of any efficiency, but there usually are political remedies.

Finally, don't tell me your reading of what I wrote prompted you to think I thought banning slavery was an injustice. That kind of incompetence would be too much... Or is it just that time of the day when the liberal need to accuse someone of racism starts acting up?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page