Thread Rating:
  • 5 Vote(s) - 2.2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Roe Vs Wade Overturned
(11-29-2022, 05:15 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: When my son was born in March of this year, we had:

- pre-birth room (for 1 day)
- Caesarian performed
- PRIVATE post-birth room (for 3 days)
- 7 lunches (4 for my wife)
- 6 dinners (3 for my wife)
- 7 breakfasts (3 for my wife. Was weird at what times we ate lol)
- unlimited snacks and sandwiches (whatever they had available, of course)
- 2 dedicated nurses, 'round the clock and their 2 aides
- Toques (beanies), blankets, baby nutrition books, a few other goodies.

Total cost of all that? $47.90. And that was only because I had to pay for my meals: my wife's were free.

US health system is so ass-backwards (like a ton of things in the country), it is laughably saddening.
I'm gonna break every record they've got. I'm tellin' you right now. I don't know how I'm gonna do it, but it's goin' to get done.

- Ja'Marr Chase 
  April 2021
Reply/Quote
He is from Canada. That's why he didn't pay much.

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Reply/Quote
(12-06-2022, 06:56 PM)MrRager Wrote: While I agree with you

Good. Not to be rude, I read your whole response, I think it is oversimplifying things. States rights can be about a lot of things... a certain independence from Washington for example. Or about taxes or regulations or policies on soy beans or whatever, sure bad stuff too. But to just say "if you advocate for states' rights, your motives are nefarious" is just not a good point to make. And neither is "it's about owning black folks", that is just polemic and untrue.

And that would be my point. Many folks, and imho with all the merit of the world, blame Trump for making polemic and untrue statements and radicalizing white folks. I doubt the answer to that is to make polemic and untrue statements and radicalize minorities.

And if the answer to that remark would be "but Trump is way worse", then it's thin.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
(12-06-2022, 08:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: Good. Not to be rude, I read your whole response, I think it is oversimplifying things. States rights can be about a lot of things... a certain independence from Washington for example. Or about taxes or regulations or policies on soy beans or whatever, sure bad stuff too. But to just say "if you advocate for states' rights, your motives are nefarious" is just not a good point to make. And neither is "it's about owning black folks", that is just polemic and untrue.

And that would be my point. Many folks, and imho with all the merit of the world, blame Trump for making polemic and untrue statements and radicalizing white folks. I doubt the answer to that is to make polemic and untrue statements and radicalize minorities.

And if the answer to that remark would be "but Trump is way worse", then it's thin.

Sure, states rights "can" be about a lot of things, but historically, which causes and movements have wielded this as a policy battle cry? 

And for which policies/laws? No president ever sent the 101st Airborne into a state to enforce a Supreme Court ruling on soy bean subsidies, right? 

"Bad stuff too" is rather an understatement here, and an oversimplification, since it is mainly the "bad stuff" that structures party and policy
division to the point that, on questions of right, one must decide where ultimate power between federal and state governments must reside.

I do agree with you that the response to Trump "making polemical and untrue statements" is not to answer him and his MAGA surrogates with
the Left/Liberal version of "polemical and untrue statements." 

But we are at a moment when a particular theory of states rights which evolved over the contestation of Black citizens civil rights is shown to be 
supple enough to extend to other domains, like the right to choose. That's what ought to worry us about this issue. It would be wrong to say
"states rights" is only about the civil rights of black citizens, but it is not wrong to remember how this ideology evolved in past deployments in an
effort to understand its current promise for right-wing policy.  I think that is what Rager was trying to do. Maybe Big P too.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
(12-07-2022, 03:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Sure, states rights "can" be about a lot of things, but historically, which causes and movements have wielded this as a policy battle cry? 

And for which policies/laws? No president ever sent the 101st Airborne into a state to enforce a Supreme Court ruling on soy bean subsidies, right? 

"Bad stuff too" is rather an understatement here, and an oversimplification, since it is mainly the "bad stuff" that structures party and policy
division to the point that, on questions of right, one must decide where ultimate power between federal and state governments must reside.

I do agree with you that the response to Trump "making polemical and untrue statements" is not to answer him and his MAGA surrogates with
the Left/Liberal version of "polemical and untrue statements." 

But we are at a moment when a particular theory of states rights which evolved over the contestation of Black citizens civil rights is shown to be 
supple enough to extend to other domains, like the right to choose. That's what ought to worry us about this issue. It would be wrong to say
"states rights" is only about the civil rights of black citizens, but it is not wrong to remember how this ideology evolved in past deployments in an
effort to understand its current promise for right-wing policy.  I think that is what Rager was trying to do. Maybe Big P too.

As you stated, it would be wrong to say "states rights" is only about owning black folks. Which was just the statement I - after michaelsean dared us - took an issue with. As often, I wonder why there's even a debate when you actually make the same point.

States rights - of course - are not inherently good or evil. They're considered a good thing by many when used for harsher gun laws, aren't they? And sure, please remember the evil, but don't just go as far as to forbid highways because Hitler bought them. States rights can be used by evil and non-evil folks alike; and imho more importantly, the same goes for folks that are in favor of more state autonomy. Like michaelsean and others, reasonable people, by no means the crazy right. That get as response that their supporting states rights is racist. Which is what happens.

And which imho is how liberals drive so many folks like him away.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
(12-08-2022, 07:48 AM)hollodero Wrote: As you stated, it would be wrong to say "states rights" is only about owning black folks. Which was just the statement I - after michaelsean dared us - took an issue with. As often, I wonder why there's even a debate when you actually make the same point.

States rights - of course - are not inherently good or evil. They're considered a good thing by many when used for harsher gun laws, aren't they? And sure, please remember the evil, but don't just go as far as to forbid highways because Hitler bought them. States rights can be used by evil and non-evil folks alike; and imho more importantly, the same goes for folks that are in favor of more state autonomy. Like michaelsean and others, reasonable people, by no means the crazy right. That get as response that their supporting states rights is racist. Which is what happens.

And which imho is how liberals drive so many folks like him away.

More agreement, at least with the bolded. 

Where you and I tend to separate is when abstract principles are situated or contextualized to specific issues within current U.S. politics, and the meaning I may or may not take away from any specific battle for states rights conflicts with your characterization of the "neutrality" of states rights in general.

What does it mean to support states rights in most of the political battles actually dividing the U.S.?  Big P's statement arose in a discussion about the right to choice, recently taken from citizens in many states. 

From the far right's perspective, that created more "freedom" by returning the decision to outlaw or not to the states--even as their representatives in Congress are working towards laws which would go the other direction and make the ban federal. 

For the record, I would just like to remind everyone that I too have been a consistent defender of states' autonomy, joining SSF in supporting the electoral college and two senators per state. One of my criticisms of Citizens United was that it took away power to regulate electoral corruption from states like Montana. 

So as I approach it, the states rights issue, like the filibuster, cannot really be understood independently of its evolution and deployment within the U.S. goverment. Your goal seems to be to separate it from its history in the battle for civil rights. From my side, reference to that history is about understanding the logic of states rights, the legal opportunities and strategies generated from it. Reference to that history doesn't make defenders of states rights on any specific issue "racist"--e.g., me when I defend MT's right to set its own restrictions on corporate donations to election campaign.  
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
(12-08-2022, 07:48 AM)hollodero Wrote: As you stated, it would be wrong to say "states rights" is only about owning black folks. Which was just the statement I - after michaelsean dared us - took an issue with. As often, I wonder why there's even a debate when you actually make the same point.

States rights - of course - are not inherently good or evil. They're considered a good thing by many when used for harsher gun laws, aren't they? And sure, please remember the evil, but don't just go as far as to forbid highways because Hitler bought them. States rights can be used by evil and non-evil folks alike; and imho more importantly, the same goes for folks that are in favor of more state autonomy. Like michaelsean and others, reasonable people, by no means the crazy right. That get as response that their supporting states rights is racist. Which is what happens.

And which imho is how liberals drive so many folks like him away.

Thank you.  I didn't think it would be all that difficult.  I wouldn't have even seen it, but I like to go to the last page and check if anything is new on a particular topic and I saw where Nately quoted it.  The mental gymnastics people go through to not have to say it's a ridiculous statement is something to see.  The entrenchment people have taken these days to protect "their side" and make the "other side" look as bad as possible is not good.  Your call for a legitimate multi-party government in the US rings more and more true. I have no use for the Trump people, and the only place to go is the Libertarian Party which I believe received about the same percentage of votes in 2016 as they did in 2012. If they were going to make inroads, that was the year.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
(12-08-2022, 01:35 PM)Dill Wrote: More agreement, at least with the bolded. 

Where you and I tend to separate is when abstract principles are situated or contextualized to specific issues within current U.S. politics, and the meaning I may or may not take away from any specific battle for states rights conflicts with your characterization of the "neutrality" of states rights in general.

What does it mean to support states rights in most of the political battles actually dividing the U.S.?  Big P's statement arose in a discussion about the right to choice, recently taken from citizens in many states. 

From the far right's perspective, that created more "freedom" by returning the decision to outlaw or not to the states--even as their representatives in Congress are working towards laws which would go the other direction and make the ban federal. 

For the record, I would just like to remind everyone that I too have been a consistent defender of states' autonomy, joining SSF in supporting the electoral
college and two senators per state. One of my criticisms of Citizens United was that it took away power to regulate electoral corrupton from states like
Montana. 

So as I approach it, the states rights issue, like the filibuster, cannot really be understood independently of its evolution and deployment within the U.S. goverment. Your goal seems to be to separate it from its history in the battle for civil rights. From my side, reference to that history is about understanding the logic of states rights, the legal opportunities and strategies generated from it. Reference to that history doesn't make defenders of states rights on any specific issue "racist"--e.g., me when I defend MT's right to set its own restrictions on corporate donations to election campaign.  

Do you think states' rights people want to own black people?
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
(12-08-2022, 02:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Do you think states' rights people want to own black people?

I think some of them are upset that the right to choose to own black people was forcefully taken away from Americans they can relate to by Americans they can not.

There are a lot of confederate flags around me here in rural PA, and seeing as it is a union state that was on the side of northern aggression does project a sort of message that doesn't get me thinking they like the idea of PA being able to have more lax abortion laws than Ohio just down the road, there.

I'm not going to do it, but a person who looks more like he belongs in these parts than me could go to the house down the dirt road with the confederate flag out front and ask if the guy thinks there should be a national ban on abortion.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
(12-08-2022, 02:44 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I think some of them are upset that the right to choose to own black people was forcefully taken away from Americans they can relate to by Americans they can not.

There are a lot of confederate flags around me here in rural PA, and seeing as it is a union state that was on the side of northern aggression does project a sort of message that doesn't get me thinking they like the idea of PA being able to have more lax abortion laws than Ohio just down the road, there.

I'm not going to do it, but a person who looks more like he belongs in these parts than me could go to the house down the dirt road with the confederate flag out front and ask if the guy thinks there should be a national ban on abortion.

abortion I could see.  Owning black people I cannot, and is a ridiculous assumption.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
(12-08-2022, 04:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: abortion I could see.  Owning black people I cannot, and is a ridiculous assumption.

I think saying the guy down the road with the confederate flag wants to own black people is hyperbole, yes.  I think he may be more open to the idea that owning black people was a right worth defending when he flies that thing.

So I don't even know who lives in the house down the road with that flag.  I doubt he's black, but it's possible.  I just assume he's probably a white dude who probably has some ideas in his head that are pretty predictable and I assume the guy has probably lived in this small town his entire life.  Again, just assumptions but I bet he and I would both agree that stereotypes exist for a reason, eh?

The main thing I think about when I see someone in the north flying the confederate flag is that they may very well be flying the flag of the army that was attempting to kill their ancestors. I picture some rural PA good ol' boy saying he wishes the South won the civil war and then he starts to fade away like Old Biff in Back To the Future 2. 
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
(12-08-2022, 05:07 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I think saying the guy down the road with the confederate flag wants to own black people is hyperbole, yes.  I think he may be more open to the idea that owning black people was a right worth defending when he flies that thing.

So I don't even know who lives in the house down the road with that flag.  I doubt he's black, but it's possible.  I just assume he's probably a white dude who probably has some ideas in his head that are pretty predictable and I assume the guy has probably lived in this small town his entire life.  Again, just assumptions but I bet he and I would both agree that stereotypes exist for a reason, eh?

The main thing I think about when I see someone in the north flying the confederate flag is that they may very well be flying the flag of the army that was attempting to kill their ancestors. I picture some rural PA good ol' boy saying he wishes the South won the civil war and then he starts to fade away like Old Biff in Back To the Future 2. 

I'm not saying there isn't anyone who still thinks that's OK, but they would be extremely few, and certainly not the assumed stance of someone who supports strong states' rights.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
(12-08-2022, 02:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Do you think states' rights people want to own black people?

Depends on which states rights people you are referring to. 

I have defended states rights on many occasion, but I don't think of myself as a "states' rights person"
belonging to some movement with a plan for rolling back the New Deal and "big government."

I don't want to own black people, or anyone, for that matter.

But there are people who do think of themselves as "states rights people."
For example, a "Tenther," one of those Republicans who emphasizes the 10th 
Amendment to return control of gun, labor, environmental and many other laws to the states, 
with the hoped for result of nullifying progressive federal regulations, allowing states to
retain more regressive policies. 

Are referring to them when you say "states rights people"?  

If so, even then I would say a significant majority probably do not want to own black people,
though they may favor regulation which greys the line between free and slave labor of any color. 

The point here, though, is that historical references to the actual development of states rights doctrine from a 
time when people did want to own slaves does not automatically burden current states rightsers 
with support of or desire for slavery.  

And I haven't seen anyone in this forum actually claim that current states' rightsers are pro slavery.
So far we have one post REMINDING us whence the doctrine came. No one is actually accused
of being pro slavery for supporting states rights today.  

   
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
(12-08-2022, 06:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm not saying there isn't anyone who still thinks that's OK, but they would be extremely few, and certainly not the assumed stance of someone who supports strong states' rights.

I assume "I want to own black people" was hyperbole.  So I'd agree they don't likely want that, but I could see them saying they think it was government overreach to declare that black people were above being owned.  How's that?
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
(12-08-2022, 06:39 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I assume "I want to own black people" was hyperbole.  So I'd agree they don't likely want that, but I could see them saying they think it was government overreach to declare that black people were above being owned.  How's that?

Might be fun and illuminating here to move more into the 20th century to topics like child labor,

which was also a big "states rights" issue at one time--states rightsers, of course, being the ones

who wanted to keep children working in mines. 

Discussion could then "update" to current struggles to eliminate human trafficking. 

Probably everyone here will defend states' rights on some issue(s). 

What's going on, though, when people band together to hammer out doctrine and create

political movements to defend states rights? Theoretically, a "leftist" states' rights movement

should be possible. Do we have one? If not, why not, if we can agree that states rights

are themselves politically "neutral" to anyone but a monarchist or dictator? 
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
(12-08-2022, 06:39 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I assume "I want to own black people" was hyperbole.  So I'd agree they don't likely want that, but I could see them saying they think it was government overreach to declare that black people were above being owned.  How's that?

Hyperbole is exaggeration. What is the lesser degree of own black people? Rent? Lease?
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
(12-08-2022, 06:36 PM)Dill Wrote: Depends on which states rights people you are referring to. 

I have defended states rights on many occasion, but I don't think of myself as a "states' rights person"
belonging to some movement with a plan for rolling back the New Deal and "big government."

I don't want to own black people, or anyone, for that matter.

But there are people who do think of themselves as "states rights people."
For example, a "Tenther," one of those Republicans who emphasizes the 10th 
Amendment to return control of gun, labor, environmental and many other laws to the states, 
with the hoped for result of nullifying progressive federal regulations, allowing states to
retain more regressive policies. 

Are referring to them when you say "states rights people"?  

If so, even then I would say a significant majority probably do not want to own black people,
though they may favor regulation which greys the line between free and slave labor of any color. 

The point here, though, is that historical references to the actual development of states rights doctrine from a 
time when people did want to own slaves does not automatically burden current states rightsers 
with support of or desire for slavery.  

And I haven't seen anyone in this forum actually claim that current states' rightsers are pro slavery.
So far we have one post REMINDING us whence the doctrine came. No one is actually accused
of being pro slavery for supporting states rights today.  

   

I’m not referring to any states rights people in particular. Read the comment and let me know if you agree with it or not.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
(12-08-2022, 08:47 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Hyperbole is exaggeration. What is the lesser degree of own black people?  Rent?  Lease?

I'd call wishing the side that wanted to preserve slavery would have won the civil war is a reduced form of supporting the right to own slaves. 
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
(12-08-2022, 08:48 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I’m not referring to any states rights people. Read the comment and let me know if you agree with it or not.

I guess I lost the point, too. 
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
(12-08-2022, 09:03 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'd call wishing the side that wanted to preserve slavery would have won the civil war is a reduced form of supporting the right to own slaves. 

Is that what he said?
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote





Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)