Announcement

**Al B. Sure!** · January 16, 2003, 17:34

uh clem:

in fact, a national gov't may be even MORE capable of the same... the people with a certain way of life (let's say the ranchers in Wyoming, Montana, etc.) will have little say in a non-federalist national gov't. people on the east coast would dominate the gov't and could essentially oppress these people in less populated areas. State's Rights prevents this

thanks

**uh Clem** · January 16, 2003, 17:49

Albert: That's true.

But the example that I used is not hypothetical; it's a real situation that existed in American history. And it was defended by (among other things) the principle of States Rights.

I grew up in a border state where I heard the phrase used repeatedly when I was growing up. And to this day, I still equate its (non-ironic) use as evidence that the speaker is a lying, racist sack of ****, unless there's evidence to the contrary.

Now, that's extremely unfair of me, I know, but it's the result of my upbringing. I can't remember ever hearing the term used honestly (take Strom Thurmond's "States Rights Democrats" of 1948, for instance). Not once.

Too bad, but that's how it seems to me, and probably to a lot of others who remember.

**MrFun** · January 17, 2003, 00:58

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Just so one part of States' Rights has been construed in such a way, does that mean that everyone that believe the States have rights (including those that believe in the 10th Amendment) are racists?

Because that is what you are insinuating, very strongly.

I can respect other, more legitimate states' rights arguments even if I may still disagree

I have the opinion that states' rights has been nothing more but a facade in order to preserve white supremacy.

So which is it? Either you can respect legitimate states' rights arguments, or states' rights are simply preservation of white supremecy and nothing more. You said both of these statements, so which is it?

There are more ways than one, to argue on specific issues. I'm saying that -- historically -- white Southerners who were racists, used states' rights arguments as a way to maintain white supremacy.

This does not mean that all states' rights advocates are racists -- when they present, other, more legitimate arguments for states' rights, and without using states' rights as a facade for a different, immoral or injust purpose.

But I cannot ignore the historical patterns that show that whenever there were attempts towards racial equality, many -- not all -- white Southern leaders have used states' rights arguments to protect white supremacy.

That does not mean that all white Southerners who argue for states' rights are racist, if they are not pursuing some immoral or injust purpose.

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 17, 2003, 01:04

You are saying that now, but you weren't in your opining post. Saying 'I have the opinion that states' rights has been nothing more but a facade in order to preserve white supremacy' indicates that you still think that way. Also like you said: " But I don't think I fully, clearly explained why I don't support stronger states' rights." Is the reason you don't support stronger states' rights because it is going to be used for racism? If not, then you haven't stated why you don't support states' right today.

And of course calling the thread itself simply "States' Rights" indicates that theory that you still believe it implies racism as well.

**Sava** · January 17, 2003, 02:11

Originally posted by JohnT
So, you want to change the constitution because supporters of something you detest can use it to further their own ends?

How typically... Leftist.

okay Rush, go back to your pork grinds and sub-par talk radio...

**Sava** · January 17, 2003, 02:14

States' rights is just an excuse for some backwards ass conservatives to indirectly support sh!t like slavery. It's funny how whenever a bunch of morally bankrupt conservatives take the immoral side of a stance, they always provide some bullsh1t justification like... "We don't want slavery, we just want states' rights"... stfu... gawd... if you're going to be evil pieces of crap, just be honest about it and say, we want to enslave consumers, and keep ourselves rich. There, now didn't that feel better?

**JohnT** · January 17, 2003, 02:50

Originally posted by Sava

okay Rush, go back to your pork grinds and sub-par talk radio...

Aha! Hooked a fish with my troll... too bad it's small and stumpy - I'm gonna have to throw it back.

Btw, it is "rinds" not "grinds." And I eat them about as much as I listen to Rush... like, once every 2 years or so. But, don't worry about that - why let facts get in the way of a good prejudice?

**Sava** · January 17, 2003, 03:34

Originally posted by JohnT

Aha! Hooked a fish with my troll... too bad it's small and stumpy - I'm gonna have to throw it back.

Btw, it is "rinds" not "grinds." And I eat them about as much as I listen to Rush... like, once every 2 years or so. But, don't worry about that - why let facts get in the way of a good prejudice?

How often you eat pork rinds is not the kind of fact I pride myself on knowing..

actually, its a good thing that I don't even know how to spell the snack that a bunch of white trash eat...

I effortlessly spend seconds pointing out the moral misgivings and mistakes of conservatives and such. You must not have much of a life if you're spending your time trying to goad people into online arguments... but hey, I got a life.

Anyways, how about you talk about the issue instead of insulting people? oh yeah... nevermind...

**JohnT** · January 17, 2003, 04:20

And yes, you pissed me off. Ain't life grand?

Originally posted by Sava
Anyways, how about you talk about the issue instead of insulting people? oh yeah... nevermind...

(emphasis mine, JT)

The last shall be the first...

"States' rights is just an excuse for some backwards ass conservatives to indirectly support sh!t like slavery. It's funny how whenever a bunch of morally bankrupt conservatives take the immoral side of a stance, they always provide some bullsh1t justification like... "We don't want slavery, we just want states' rights"... stfu... gawd... if you're going to be evil pieces of crap, just be honest about it and say, we want to enslave consumers, and keep ourselves rich. There, now didn't that feel better?"

and...

"okay Rush, go back to your pork grinds and sub-par talk radio..."

Before removing the mote in thy neighbors eye, attend to the beam in thine own... asswipe.

Originally posted by Sava
You must not have much of a life if you're spending your time trying to goad people into online arguments... but hey, I got a life.

And the first shall be the last...

Hmmm. I am a self-employed business owner with assets comfortably in the 6 figures. I have a wife who adores me, and a blessed little girl who is the most... I don't know... if you're not a parent it's hard to explain, but... Sophie is the most enthralling child. You know, you just don't love your kids, you fall in love with them. And I gotta tell you something kid: I am a wonderful, wonderful father. And that is not my opinion - I've had strangers compliment me on how I handle Sophia.

You couldn't handle my life. You couldn't handle working 12-14 hour days starting your own business - and doing your schedule in such a way so that you will be home by 6:00pm so that you can spend 5-6 more hours with your wife and child. You couldn't handle the strains brought about by the events in this thread in the manner that I did - i.e., like a man. From what I've gathered from your posts, your idea of a rough time is angrily watching housewives drive their SUV's in your little exclusionary white-flight neighborhood in Napierville, IL.

How many times has a woman told you "I love you"?

What accomplishments have you brought into the real world - not the world of academia being a student, but as a person of consequence in your chosen organization?

Who loves you who has chosen to love you?

Whose lives do you enrich? Who looks to you for guidance, for advice, for compassion and understanding?

So why don't you just go back to your little dorm room and your hooka, child, and leave the business of the world to us men who actually have lives and are living them.

**uh Clem** · January 17, 2003, 09:02

Hmmm.

Indignation's such a great way to change the subject.

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 17, 2003, 11:24

John:

**SlowwHand** · January 17, 2003, 11:37

State's rights exists, needs to exist, and will continue to exist.
Get over it, Lord Sava.

**MrFun** · January 17, 2003, 12:32

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You are saying that now, but you weren't in your opining post. Saying 'I have the opinion that states' rights has been nothing more but a facade in order to preserve white supremacy' indicates that you still think that way. Also like you said: " But I don't think I fully, clearly explained why I don't support stronger states' rights." Is the reason you don't support stronger states' rights because it is going to be used for racism? If not, then you haven't stated why you don't support states' right today.

And of course calling the thread itself simply "States' Rights" indicates that theory that you still believe it implies racism as well.

I hate miscommunication that results from my mistakes, and from other people's misperceptions.

The reason why I do not support the argument, that historically, white Southern leaders were legitimately concerned about states' rights in the past, is because they used states' rights to preserve white supremacy.

Now, today, I doubt that there are as nearly as great a number of white Southerners who would advocate states' rights to return to Jim Crow, segregation, and disfranchisement. But in the past -- white Southern leaders have used states' rights to try to prevent racial equality.

The reason why I do not support stronger states' rights today, is simply because the federal government has more resources than an individual state has, in dealing with paramount issues. But on the other hand, there are other areas where states' rights truly need to be preserved.

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 17, 2003, 12:35

Ah, well that's valid, but saying you didn't support states' right today... as well as the rest of your posts, seemed to show that you believe today's states' rights was all about racism.

**SlowwHand** · January 17, 2003, 12:52

Look at all the State laws. Attention: A form of State's Rights.

Announcement

States' Rights

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment