Faithfull-freedom
25-08-2004, 17:20
I am trying to understand the opinions on why we should not allow the states to have thier own say on all the issues that the states now hold. Also why you may prefer keeping states rights, over becoming a more centralized nation (remember this means centralized the way the controling religous people would have it or the controlling enviro's, only these extremists from the right and left seem to want complete control)? But are you willing to let the otherside (whatever that would be) to have complete control over the entire nations 50 states, because of a centralized government? Is it worth it to you?
Why is it that the democrats and republicans both only like states rights when it can benefit an issue they are for? But are against states rights when an issue that is approved by the state goes against what they would like. Doesn't this seem shallow to anyone else out there in the name of freedom? I can understand being against something via national or your own state's issues, but another states, this I am trying to understand? Is there people out there that actually see that states rights is all about the state doing what it wants (in agreeance with our Constitution) , not what another state wants it to do, regardless of how much of a national issue we might want it to be for personal reasons? For some strange reason, even the issues I disagree with that states have approved for thier own citizens, only creates an even more patriotic feeling for me, knowing that other Americans get what they want and not only what I or any other would want them to have.
We have states that have legalized gambling and prostitution. 35 States endorse medical marijuana, only 9 allow it as a optional treatment for people prescribed other class I and II drugs or have some serious ailment. We have a state that allows you to commit suicide with a doctors assistance. And now a state that is about to legalize marijuana for any legal state resident. Is this not diversity (I disagree with 4 out of 5 of these issues, and would and have voted against them if/when my state brought these up)? Having differences in beliefs and opinions is all about freedom. Do you wish that we all just had the same beliefs and nobody could ever stray from those borders? That is what we would have if we had a more centralized government.This is not feesable under our current Constitution and federalist papers, so would you change this also, to a more lively form?
Intolerance and the want for less diversity but more control seems to be the answer that we all push upon everyone else, no?
Why is it that the democrats and republicans both only like states rights when it can benefit an issue they are for? But are against states rights when an issue that is approved by the state goes against what they would like. Doesn't this seem shallow to anyone else out there in the name of freedom? I can understand being against something via national or your own state's issues, but another states, this I am trying to understand? Is there people out there that actually see that states rights is all about the state doing what it wants (in agreeance with our Constitution) , not what another state wants it to do, regardless of how much of a national issue we might want it to be for personal reasons? For some strange reason, even the issues I disagree with that states have approved for thier own citizens, only creates an even more patriotic feeling for me, knowing that other Americans get what they want and not only what I or any other would want them to have.
We have states that have legalized gambling and prostitution. 35 States endorse medical marijuana, only 9 allow it as a optional treatment for people prescribed other class I and II drugs or have some serious ailment. We have a state that allows you to commit suicide with a doctors assistance. And now a state that is about to legalize marijuana for any legal state resident. Is this not diversity (I disagree with 4 out of 5 of these issues, and would and have voted against them if/when my state brought these up)? Having differences in beliefs and opinions is all about freedom. Do you wish that we all just had the same beliefs and nobody could ever stray from those borders? That is what we would have if we had a more centralized government.This is not feesable under our current Constitution and federalist papers, so would you change this also, to a more lively form?
Intolerance and the want for less diversity but more control seems to be the answer that we all push upon everyone else, no?