Another blue-dog liberal turns traitor!

[piqaboo]

I have a huge fear that if we "make a success" in Iraq, we'll see it as carte blanche to go change any govt we get the whim to change, instead of sighing with relief that we got away with it once, and staying clear of the same mistake again.

IMO, there was no justification or excuse for going in to Iraq. I've read and listened to Shapley (who I perceive as liking whatever is the status quo) BigJon and Haggis, who is a self described defense-o-phile. Haggis had a few arguments that I could see value in, tho I disagree with his conclusion that invasion was a good thing.
The most persuasive was "hit em before they become nuclear" - the result was that the neighbors accelerated their nuke programs. This does not seem winning strategy, in hindsite.

[Haggis@wk]

John Warner has declared that he will filibuster his own non-binding resolution

Sen. John W. Warner will join his fellow Republicans in voting Monday to block the resolution he wrote rebuking President Bush's Iraq war policy

They are all, both Republican and Democrat, despicable opportunists

[analog]

...................
While I doubt if it would make very many of the neighboring countries happy, partitioning Iraq into Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni enclaves, and letting each one declare alliance with whatever nearby entities they desire seems like the best answer to me. But I'm not dedicating 80 hours a week to studying the problem, so I could be (and probably am) wrong.

Barfle don't dismiss that thought....

Why couldn't Iraq's dozen or so provinces form a loose fitting "articles of confederation" rather like the first US's first attempt? With 21st century instant communication it just might go. The strong central government US has today is not what we started with.

That might provide more room for regional differences. And time to regain national equilibrium in smaller chunks.


Our individual states were once so different from one another that a civil war broke out here, too.




a.

[jamiebk]

A worthy idea, but I fear that it would too be impossible as has been peace in the region. The reason is, that there would probably be a land grab for the oil rich or productive lands by the various tribes. I swear, I think that's want all this civil war is about anyway...who gets to control the purse strings and economy.

[barfle]

While useful to a region's economy, natural resources are not a requirement for a strong one. Witness Switzerland and Japan, neither of which have much in the way of natural resources.

Of course, both have strong educational systems, and have been able to overcome, at least for the present, their religious prejudices in favor of a productive society in this life.

[Haggis@wk]

The NY Times:

Republicans on Monday blocked Senate debate on a bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq, leaving in doubt whether the Senate would render a judgment on what lawmakers of both parties described as the paramount issue of the day.

The Washington Post:

A long-awaited Senate showdown on the war in Iraq was shut down before it even started yesterday, when nearly all Republicans voted to stop the Senate from considering a resolution opposing President Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional combat troops into battle.

AP:

Republicans blocked a full-fledged Senate debate over Iraq on Monday, but Democrats vowed to find a way to force President Bush to change course in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops.

Reality:

All utter nonsense and a clear indication of bias (but we already knew that, didn’t we?) Actually the Democrats are attempting to end debate on a single resolution (and need 60 votes to do it) and force a vote on that single resolution without allowing others to be considered. By opposing cloture (which would stop debate), the Republicans are actually keeping debate open.

“Ducking debates about our national defense has become too topical and typical in this country because we are unable to bring matters before this floor. No amendments, no votes, no debates—that is not the way to do a bill in the Senate.”

(Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 10/05/05, p.S11061)

Of course, that is precisely what Sen. Reid is now trying to engineer through his attempt to end debate through cloture.

How long ago was it when filibusters were essential to democracy when they were used against a Republican majority, but now that Democrats are in the majority filibusters are back to being bad efforts to shut down debate. . . .

Nothing has changed for me though, I loathe the whole lot of scheming opportunistic pillocks

[barfle]

It's clear to me that the 17th amendment was passed in error. There is no smiley.

[Shapley]

It's clear to me that the 17th amendment was passed in error. There is no smiley.

I argued that long ago. The Senate was supposed to represent the States, and the House to represent the people. The War Between the States crippled States' rights. The 17th amendment pretty well finished them off.

V/R
Shapley

[Haggis@wk]

It's clear to me that the 17th amendment was passed in error. There is no smiley.

I argued that long ago. The Senate was supposed to represent the States, and the House to represent the people. The War Between the States crippled States' rights. The 17th amendment pretty well finished them off.

V/R
Shapley

My sentiments exactly.

A young friend in college had asked me about my opinion of the current health of our government and I told him essentially the same thing as Shapley; the 17th Amendment gutted the concept of our founding fathers' dreams. He was shocked at my comments and relayed them to his "American Government" teacher who, predictably, disagreed and spoke how states’ rights are little more than drivers licenses and tourist boards.

What bothers me is that that one Amendment can be traced to so many modern problems while no one seems to be in favor of eliminating it.

[Shapley]

What bothers me is that that one Amendment can be traced to so many modern problems while no one seems to be in favor of eliminating it.

I think 'the people' labour under the impression that that amendment gives them some sort of power, power which they would lose if the amendment were repealed.

Not having been alive at the time of it's ratification, I do not know what method was used to sell that amendment to the public, nor what perceived problem arose from the original method of selecting Senators to compel the people to want to change it. I count myself among the few in favour of eliminating it.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

So...am I correct to assume that those who favor states rights would support state laws regarding matters ranging from assisted suicide, abortion, medical marijuana, stem cell research to "universal" heath care etc.?

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

So...am I correct to assume that those who favor states rights would support state laws regarding matters ranging from assisted suicide, abortion, medical marijuana, stem cell research to "universal" heath care etc.?

Seems reasonable to me. (Of course I'd be the first to point out that "reason" and "politics" seldom occur together.)

[Shapley]

So...am I correct to assume that those who favor states rights would support state laws regarding matters ranging from assisted suicide, abortion, medical marijuana, stem cell research to "universal" heath care etc.?

Absolutely.

California is attempting to enact 'near universal' health care now. The States are free to provide whatever level of coverage they can afford.

I've stated my position on termination of life issues back in the 'Terry Schiavo' thread, where I stated that it was a State's decision, whether I agreed with that decision or not.

The Federal government still would maintain the right to impose restrictions on 'Federal' monies. If a State wishes to fnance stem cell research it would have to do so with its' own funding, unless the Federal government removes restrictions against it. This really isn't much different from the way it operates now. You may recall that, back when the Federal government wanted to impose a National 55 mile-per-hour speed limit, it allowed the States to maintain higher speed limits if they were willing to forgo Federal highway funds.

Laws should be passed at the lowest possible level and applied effectively, rather than being passed at the highest possible level and applied selectively.

V/R
Shapley

[Haggis@wk]

So...am I correct to assume that those who favor states rights would support state laws regarding matters ranging from assisted suicide, abortion, medical marijuana, stem cell research to "universal" heath care etc.?

Of course, I have always favored the rights of states above federal law. Remember The federal "rights" are enumerated, meaning that if it ain't in writing it belongs to the states

[Shapley]

meaning that if it ain't in writing it belongs to the states

...or to the People. There are limits, also, on what the States can do.

[barfle]

So...am I correct to assume that those who favor states rights would support state laws regarding matters ranging from assisted suicide, abortion, medical marijuana, stem cell research to "universal" heath care etc.?

Yes, at least this one. It would mean that, as a Vahjinyahhn, I would have no say in the politics of Nevada, and Nevadans would have no say in the politics of Vahjinyah. If New Hampshirites want to ban stem cell research, that won't affect a Californian working on figuring out how to make them do what they want done. If Hawaiians want to let their MDs prescribe marijuana, the folks in Missouri who think it's an evil weed won't be able to force the cancer patients to suffer more than is necessary.

[Shapley]

Yes, at least this one. It would mean that, as a Vahjinyahhn, I would have no say in the politics of Nevada, and Nevadans would have no say in the politics of Vahjinyah. If New Hampshirites want to ban stem cell research, that won't affect a Californian working on figuring out how to make them do what they want done. If Hawaiians want to let their MDs prescribe marijuana, the folks in Missouri who think it's an evil weed won't be able to force the cancer patients to suffer more than is necessary.

Barfle,

Surely you jest! What your proposing would actually make the country run the way the Constitution says it should run. Even the suggestion of such a thing makes a lot of career Washington types quake in their wing tips.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

Let's just say I prefer the do-gooders from both sides to have their influence limited to approximately 2% of what it is now.

[Haggis@wk]

So...am I correct to assume that those who favor states rights would support state laws regarding matters ranging from assisted suicide, abortion, medical marijuana, stem cell research to "universal" heath care etc.?

So, after Shapley's Barfle's and my response.....what is your reaction? Surprise?

[jamiebk]

No, not surprised actually. I just threw those items out to indicate that there are a lot of dicey issues out there that seem to be handled on a national debate basis. For instance, recently here in NorCal, we had a federal raid on medical marijuana dispenseries. Those of us in the state who voted for the use of medical marijuana feel this is wrong, but they stand on federal drug laws as justification. And, the abortion issue will certainly not go away anytime soon.

So Shap, I will ask you a question, I believe that you are pro-life. Given that, and your stand on State's rights, you believe that it would be within the right of the state to allow (or deny) abortion. However, and correct me if I am wrong, you are against a woman's right to choose. If you believe that a group of voters can elect to allow abortion, then why should it not be the right of every woman to do so individually?