?

Log in

No account? Create an account

t3knomanser's Fustian Deposits

I can't fucking count...

How Random Babbling Becomes Corporate Policy

run the fuck away

Mad science gone horribly, horribly wrong(or right).

I can't fucking count...

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
4 Star Logo
How many votes?No, really, how many?

And these are the vote errors that we _know_ about. And in Ohio, we can't do a recount- because there's no smegging paper trail, fuck you very much too Diebold. Fuckers.

Something I've been noticing as of late- a great many liberals are running around with gags about secession- becoming the United States of Canada while the remainder of North America gets to be Jesusland. Ha ha, funny, yeah whatever.

It once again hammers home something I've been saying for some time- we need a Federalist government. For the uninitiated, what I'm saying is that the States should have more power and self-determination, and the Federal government should be scaled back signifigantly. This is why I move to reduce the size of our standing military and supplement it up with a massive investment in a rebuilt militia for the defense of our borders- but the militia, unlike the National Guard, is under the control of its home state- meaning it can't be sent overseas. And so forth.

Approach it from this angle. Suppose Roe V. Wade gets overturned. Unlikely, but let's keep the whatif. What does that mean? It doesn't mean abortion suddenly becomes illegal everywhere. It means that states get the right to choose whether or not abortion is legal- and really, that doesn't sound to bad to me. Oh sure, those pesky Red States will ban it outright, in an instant. But there'll be that haven of Blue States, and really, that's not so bad, now is it? Not good for the pro-abortion factions, but not so bad for the pro-choice faction- because you do still have a choice- you can take a little trip to a Blue State and get matters taken care of.

That's just an example. A state gets to marry its own residents (it shouldn't be able to marry the residents of other states- sorry Vegas), so if Mass. wants to marry same-sex couples, no problem. But the Federal Government does not have the right to enforce the DOMA- because that meddles in the wrong ways with interstate affairs. For consistancy among states, we must have a structure where legal contracts made in one state are valid in all others, and marriage is a legal contract, no more, no less.




Which throws me off on a rant. Because, as of late, it's the Conservatives that are getting all subjective in their philosophies, and I'm not talking pseudoscience-creationism. I'm talking about the argument that if the majority says so, then it must be true. If the majority says that they go to church on Sunday, then we get Sundays off so they can go to church. If the majority says that marriage means one thing, then it must mean one thing.

A Democratic Republic is not a license for mob rule. The majority is not always right- and the majority turns whichever way the wind blows far more often than the Repubs tried to say Kerry did. That's why it's a Democratic Republic- the masses get to choose their leaders, but it is not right that the leaders respond to the whims of the masses. Too much are politicians hugging to the polling data, suckling from the teat of popular opinion, when really, they should be making their own decisions.

Fuckers.
  • Explain to me how in the world of insanly fast and massive computers a machine can only hold 3000 or even 10000 votes?! That doesn't make any god damn sense!

    Still reading your post...
  • I agree and horribly disagree with you.

    First of all, no, the leaders should not be blindly following the people. They shosuld be working for them, but everyone doesn't always know what they want. West Wing put it best: We're the country that looks out for our peoples' best interests, even the ones who try to harm us. I think our government is a good idea, and I trust Washington more than I trust the states.

    Washington needs to get their act together, but they're more together than the states themselves. I don't think the states should be able to squash peoples' rights at all. Why should you have to hop states to get married or have an abortion?! Why shouldn't you be able to be married in any state you choose? What happens when you move states? You need to be remarried? If anyone handles marrage, it's federal. Period.

    Get rid of Mob Rules, yes. Get ride of Federal Rule? Not a chance.
  • I am so freaking tired of Conservatives using this arguement:

    1. The majority of the people in the country are opposed to same sex marriage.
    2. Since the majority of people oppose same sex marriage is must be wrong.
    3. Since same sex marriage is wrong, we should pass legislation to prohibit something wrong (same sex marriage)from happening.

    If we used this arguement, African Americans would still be drinking out of fountains for "colored people". It just erks me. I really am all for everything from PA north just leaving the country. I find even the republicans in the liberal north are more moderate. I can deal with them. The Red State Republicans? Gwar.
  • not so bad for the pro-choice faction- because you do still have a choice- you can take a little trip to a Blue State and get matters taken care of.

    That makes it all sound so simple. I spend hours every week with women who are getting abortions. Your "option" isn't one for most of them.

    Rich women will always be able to get abortions. Always. The women freedom of access really protects are those who are poor and those who are young. Women who can't afford to travel across multiple states. Women who will lose their jobs if they miss that much work. Women who are already choosing between their rent payment and the cost of the abortion. Women who can't leave their parents' house for multiple days without some damn good explanation, no matter how good the reason for not telling them about the abortion is.

    We're already seeing these problems. If Roe v. Wade goes down, they're going to get exponentially worse.

    And don't forget about the laws on the books in some states that it's now a felony for someone other than a parent to take a minor across state lines for an abortion.
    • I'm not saying it'd be good, and what I'm really getting at is that, in a Federalist context, it's _less_ of an issue- which isn't saying it's not an issue.

      Now, when I look at the fact that there's no way for the po' folk to get an abortion, I have to say "Good", because that is a golden business opportunity. While the abortion process has become more sanitary and safer, it's still a fairly invasive procedure, still carries medical risks, and really- isn't a good solution. I'm approaching this as a strict capitalist- but the goal shouldn't be to have the government provide abortions- the goal instead should be to engage in research to find a cheaper, more convienent way to reliably abort a child.

      Especially when you can construct an "At-Home-Abortion" kit- cheap, discreet, portable- then we're looking at a real practical- and something not easily regulated by the states.

      As for that last law- it's unconstitutional. Only the Federal Government has the right to regulate Interstate Commerce.
Powered by LiveJournal.com