Favorite president of the United States? - Page 3 - VGF

ADVENTURE BUS · 01-23-2005, 11:18 PM

BILL CLINTON!

Then ABE.

Any flamers?

And uh, moving to another state Phil aint gonna solve the problem, I know to you and many others who've probably been rarely or never discriminated, not attacking you, just telling you.

It sucks, but to move away and let them win like that is not fair, because sooner or later, state by state will do that, and in time, the gov. could just ignore it

Jonathan Resop · 01-24-2005, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philip55:
Civil rights is different, as that is actually spelled out in the 14th amendment (which was never legally ratified, but oh well). But even if it wasn't, it wouldn't really be a big deal. If one state discriminates against you, you can move to another one, so you're always as free as the freest state.

That right there is the single most retarded comment ever posted. Congratulations.-jay

OcarinaMan · 01-24-2005, 01:22 AM

^^ Bill Clinton had style, but little substance. It speaks quite a bit when even in a left-leaning media, the most remembered event in his presidency is the Lewinski scandal.

Philip55 · 01-24-2005, 01:22 AM

You have yet to post an argument. Congratulations.

Doubtful that every state would continue to curtail civil liberties. Anyway, moving to a different state cetainly isn't going to make the state you're living in more likely to discriminate against you.

Philip55 · 01-24-2005, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ElfLad:
^^ Bill Clinton had style, but little substance. It speaks quite a bit when even in a left-leaning media, the most remembered event in his presidency is the Lewinski scandal.

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, Brady Bill, Defense of Marriage Act, Iraq Liberation Act (set the policy Bush followed up on), welfare reform.

Of course, the liberal legislation like OBRA and the Brady Bill came before the 1994 GOP take-over of the Congress.

Also, I give him credit for NAFTA.

Jonathan Resop · 01-24-2005, 02:21 AM

The comment is so moronic, it deserves no credit, much less a counter-arguement. It's the kind of comment that someone makes who obviously knows nothing about descrimiation. To suggest that is it easy for people to just take everything they own and run away from descrimination, to run away from their homes, where they were raised, is just retarded. You obviously know little about the real world. You're just living in your own little fantasy.-jay

[ January 24, 2005, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: Perrin Aybara ]

Philip55 · 01-24-2005, 03:49 AM

Well, if you live in a state where murdering you is a less severe crime than murdering a "normal" person, I would suggest moving -- which is not nearly as rare as you seem to think.

Nick · 01-24-2005, 04:51 AM

Environmental policy technically would fall as an interstate problem, not an individual state problem. Factories in the Ohio Valley aren't just polluting downtown Cleveland, they're effecting states all around them. The Fed. setting a minimum standard is a necessity because the states cannot be trusted to curb it themselves.

Lets assume we use your state-policy theory, where all environmental regulation is decided from a state. Lets say a state like Ohio decides to tax the hell out of pollution industry as a deterrant. Ohio then watches their industry pull out very quickly, lay off the workers, and move to a state that has low (or no) taxes. Essentially, the lack of a solid standard will hurt industry when setting up new operations. Without a solid universal standard, you don't actually solve the problem. We're at the point where local states are reluctant to tax corporations to raise money, what makes you think they'd tax them even more to prevent pollution when the end result would essentially be an industrial migration to a state with low pollution tax rates?

Letting states control everything isn't worth it in several cases. Other examples are currency (universal currency is a must), foreign trade and diplomacy, tariffs, and other economic factors. Environmental safeguards should have a manditory federal standard that states can further add onto (as in the current system).

We have safeguards on drinking water, although Bush has allowed more mercury/arsenic levels to be present in the water in the name of deregulation (although I have no clue why since that seems like a reasonable regulation).

**Prince Toad** · 01-24-2005, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ElfLad:
left-leaning media

No.

***CaptHayfever*** · 01-24-2005, 02:31 PM

^^^To which I again respond: What if the state's discriminatory practices PREVENT YOU FROM MOVING?

^Yes. Fox isn't the only biased news source in America.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

**Prince Toad** · 01-24-2005, 03:35 PM

^There's some left-leaning media, but it is by no means prevalent. America's media isn't any more liberal than it is conservative.

Brandon2390 · 01-24-2005, 09:00 PM

Ronald Raegan was clearly racist, which I'm just making the statement right now, I dont feel like getting into an argument about it in this point and time.

Philip55 · 01-24-2005, 09:23 PM

Interstate commerce, in the Constitution, refers to traffic between the states.

As for the argument about moving from one state to another, the same could be said about countries. Every state, just like every country, would have to balance economic concerns with environmental concerns.

One of the things I liked about the Confederate Constitution is that it made an exception to the state compact ban: But when any river divides or flows through two or more States, they may enter into compacts with each other to improve the navigation thereof.

I would allow states to enter into compacts for environmental purposes.

Quote:

Ronald Raegan was clearly racist, which I'm just making the statement right now, I dont feel like getting into an argument about it in this point and time.

Translation: I am a Democrat who doesn't like Ronald Reagan

ocarinagirl · 01-24-2005, 09:58 PM

^Apparently, you're not aware of the Reagan administation setting back education for minorities by about 100 years.

Philip55 · 01-24-2005, 10:21 PM

lol. And how exactly did he do this?

Federal government has no legitimate role in education.

ocarinagirl · 01-24-2005, 10:26 PM

LINK!

The entire administration, not just Reagan.

Philip55 · 01-24-2005, 10:36 PM

What does that have to do with the Reagan administration's policy towards education? Just tell me what, explicitly, he did.

ocarinagirl · 01-24-2005, 10:43 PM

Well, if you'd read the excerpts on that site, it'll say.

It's been awhile since I read Savage Inequalities, so I'm not exactly the person to ask (that's why I linked), but I know the administration refused to give financial aid to schools with mainly minority students, but the schools in white suburbia got a ton.

I don't want to debate, that was just my two cents. Jesus ****ing Christ, man. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Philip55 · 01-24-2005, 10:50 PM

Well, if you're talking about funding urban communities, Democrats had a comfortable majority in the House of Representatives during both of Reagan's two terms.

Anyway, that's a world away from "Reagan was obviously a racist."

ocarinagirl · 01-24-2005, 10:55 PM

^There might have been other things that the administration has done, but it escaped my bwain. Okay?

Personally, I think it's more of an incompetency issue rather than "Reagan was a racist." But, eh...

01-23-2005, 11:18 PM	#41
ADVENTURE BUS I'MA FIRIN MAH ADVENTURE BUS! Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Birmingham, AL Gender: Posts: 13,123 Thanks: 937 Thanked 660 Times in 385 Posts Points: 50,679.32 Bank: 500,939.68 Total Points: 551,619.00 Donate	BILL CLINTON! Then ABE. Any flamers? And uh, moving to another state Phil aint gonna solve the problem, I know to you and many others who've probably been rarely or never discriminated, not attacking you, just telling you. It sucks, but to move away and let them win like that is not fair, because sooner or later, state by state will do that, and in time, the gov. could just ignore it __________________ Season 1- Coming to a Youtube near you....whenever

01-24-2005, 01:22 AM	#43
OcarinaMan Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Ikana Castle Posts: 2,482 Thanks: 1 Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts Points: 7,834.77 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 8,334.77 Donate	^^ Bill Clinton had style, but little substance. It speaks quite a bit when even in a left-leaning media, the most remembered event in his presidency is the Lewinski scandal.

01-24-2005, 01:22 AM	#44
Philip55 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 142 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,563.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 5,063.00 Donate	You have yet to post an argument. Congratulations. Doubtful that every state would continue to curtail civil liberties. Anyway, moving to a different state cetainly isn't going to make the state you're living in more likely to discriminate against you.

01-24-2005, 02:21 AM	#46
Jonathan Resop Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 1 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 34,043.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 34,543.00 Donate	The comment is so moronic, it deserves no credit, much less a counter-arguement. It's the kind of comment that someone makes who obviously knows nothing about descrimiation. To suggest that is it easy for people to just take everything they own and run away from descrimination, to run away from their homes, where they were raised, is just retarded. You obviously know little about the real world. You're just living in your own little fantasy.-jay [ January 24, 2005, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: Perrin Aybara ]

01-24-2005, 03:49 AM	#47
Philip55 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 142 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,563.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 5,063.00 Donate	Well, if you live in a state where murdering you is a less severe crime than murdering a "normal" person, I would suggest moving -- which is not nearly as rare as you seem to think.

01-24-2005, 04:51 AM	#48
Nick Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 10,313.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 10,813.00 Donate	Environmental policy technically would fall as an interstate problem, not an individual state problem. Factories in the Ohio Valley aren't just polluting downtown Cleveland, they're effecting states all around them. The Fed. setting a minimum standard is a necessity because the states cannot be trusted to curb it themselves. Lets assume we use your state-policy theory, where all environmental regulation is decided from a state. Lets say a state like Ohio decides to tax the hell out of pollution industry as a deterrant. Ohio then watches their industry pull out very quickly, lay off the workers, and move to a state that has low (or no) taxes. Essentially, the lack of a solid standard will hurt industry when setting up new operations. Without a solid universal standard, you don't actually solve the problem. We're at the point where local states are reluctant to tax corporations to raise money, what makes you think they'd tax them even more to prevent pollution when the end result would essentially be an industrial migration to a state with low pollution tax rates? Letting states control everything isn't worth it in several cases. Other examples are currency (universal currency is a must), foreign trade and diplomacy, tariffs, and other economic factors. Environmental safeguards should have a manditory federal standard that states can further add onto (as in the current system). We have safeguards on drinking water, although Bush has allowed more mercury/arsenic levels to be present in the water in the name of deregulation (although I have no clue why since that seems like a reasonable regulation).

01-24-2005, 02:31 PM	#50
*CaptHayfever* Smash Supermod Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: (n) - the place where I am Gender: Posts: 19,273 Thanks: 160 Thanked 733 Times in 474 Posts Points: 105,385.73 Bank: 923.79 Total Points: 106,309.52 Donate	^^^To which I again respond: What if the state's discriminatory practices PREVENT YOU FROM MOVING? ^Yes. Fox isn't the only biased news source in America. And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

01-24-2005, 03:35 PM	#51
Prince Toad PC Mod Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Rookery Gender: Posts: 11,402 Thanks: 43 Thanked 56 Times in 47 Posts Points: 43,221.57 Bank: 18,304.68 Total Points: 61,526.25 Donate	^There's some left-leaning media, but it is by no means prevalent. America's media isn't any more liberal than it is conservative.

01-24-2005, 09:00 PM	#52
Brandon2390 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Connecticut Posts: 10,366 Thanks: 5 Thanked 18 Times in 15 Posts Points: 37,333.62 Bank: 853.44 Total Points: 38,187.06 Donate	Ronald Raegan was clearly racist, which I'm just making the statement right now, I dont feel like getting into an argument about it in this point and time.

01-24-2005, 09:58 PM	#54
ocarinagirl Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Ehhh? What? Where am I?! Gender: Posts: 3,010 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 7,918.83 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 8,418.83 Donate	^Apparently, you're not aware of the Reagan administation setting back education for minorities by about 100 years.

01-24-2005, 10:21 PM	#55
Philip55 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 142 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,563.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 5,063.00 Donate	lol. And how exactly did he do this? Federal government has no legitimate role in education.

01-24-2005, 10:26 PM	#56
ocarinagirl Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Ehhh? What? Where am I?! Gender: Posts: 3,010 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 7,918.83 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 8,418.83 Donate	LINK! The entire administration, not just Reagan.

01-24-2005, 10:36 PM	#57
Philip55 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 142 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,563.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 5,063.00 Donate	What does that have to do with the Reagan administration's policy towards education? Just tell me what, explicitly, he did.

01-24-2005, 10:43 PM	#58
ocarinagirl Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Ehhh? What? Where am I?! Gender: Posts: 3,010 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 7,918.83 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 8,418.83 Donate	Well, if you'd read the excerpts on that site, it'll say. It's been awhile since I read Savage Inequalities, so I'm not exactly the person to ask (that's why I linked), but I know the administration refused to give financial aid to schools with mainly minority students, but the schools in white suburbia got a ton. I don't want to debate, that was just my two cents. Jesus ****ing Christ, man. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

01-24-2005, 10:50 PM	#59
Philip55 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 142 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,563.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 5,063.00 Donate	Well, if you're talking about funding urban communities, Democrats had a comfortable majority in the House of Representatives during both of Reagan's two terms. Anyway, that's a world away from "Reagan was obviously a racist."

01-24-2005, 10:55 PM	#60
ocarinagirl Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Ehhh? What? Where am I?! Gender: Posts: 3,010 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 7,918.83 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 8,418.83 Donate	^There might have been other things that the administration has done, but it escaped my bwain. Okay? Personally, I think it's more of an incompetency issue rather than "Reagan was a racist." But, eh...