|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leon wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Freedom is not found in every place conforming to "your" values, which is really what you mean when you say the South would be less free.
Freedom is giving people the opportunity to construct a society and have laws that reflect their beliefs. |
No, thats not freedom. Freedom is something that protects minorities, not necessarily racial, as well as the majority in that area. Plus having widely different laws puts a strain on the union lest we forget why we fought all those years ago. |
You can have Federal minimums (incorporated Bill of Rights) protecting minorities and also administrative decentralization. Tennessee's particular murder statute can exist side by side with the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. You don't endanger someone's civil rights by having zoning ordinances determined at the local level. |
Of course not, zoning is mostly a local issue. I'm not arguing for complete federal control, but many people are arguing for states dominance over the federal government. I don't think in terms of absolute national control, but I guess when many people are so used to thinking in absolutes thats what they see in everyone. |
You could've changed that last sentence to explain your worldview in more detail, but instead chose to take a dig. That suggests something to me about your potential to teach me anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Freedom is not found in every place conforming to "your" values, which is really what you mean when you say the South would be less free.
Freedom is giving people the opportunity to construct a society and have laws that reflect their beliefs. |
No, thats not freedom. Freedom is something that protects minorities, not necessarily racial, as well as the majority in that area. Plus having widely different laws puts a strain on the union lest we forget why we fought all those years ago. |
You can have Federal minimums (incorporated Bill of Rights) protecting minorities and also administrative decentralization. Tennessee's particular murder statute can exist side by side with the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. You don't endanger someone's civil rights by having zoning ordinances determined at the local level. |
Of course not, zoning is mostly a local issue. I'm not arguing for complete federal control, but many people are arguing for states dominance over the federal government. I don't think in terms of absolute national control, but I guess when many people are so used to thinking in absolutes thats what they see in everyone. |
You could've changed that last sentence to explain your worldview in more detail, but instead chose to take a dig. That suggests something to me about your potential to teach me anything. |
That wasn't really meant as a dig towards you, even though I was responding to your quote. More of an observation on several people on this board who probably read what I write and automatically think fascist or communist, or socialist, or what not. As to world view I believe that the federal government has supremacy over local ones. I believe that certain things like human rights and education standards should be nationwide otherwise America could become fictionalized on state lines with each American living a different experience based upon what region they live, which would make us a weaker and less United States. I think that many people who want state rights want the right to lash out against things that they don't like and people that they don't like and it would be more used for restriction than freeing things up. Even things like zoning can be used politically, for instance if someone tried to zone against things like a Mosque or anything else they didn't agree with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Freedom is not found in every place conforming to "your" values, which is really what you mean when you say the South would be less free.
Freedom is giving people the opportunity to construct a society and have laws that reflect their beliefs. |
No, thats not freedom. Freedom is something that protects minorities, not necessarily racial, as well as the majority in that area. Plus having widely different laws puts a strain on the union lest we forget why we fought all those years ago. |
You can have Federal minimums (incorporated Bill of Rights) protecting minorities and also administrative decentralization. Tennessee's particular murder statute can exist side by side with the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. You don't endanger someone's civil rights by having zoning ordinances determined at the local level. |
Of course not, zoning is mostly a local issue. I'm not arguing for complete federal control, but many people are arguing for states dominance over the federal government. I don't think in terms of absolute national control, but I guess when many people are so used to thinking in absolutes thats what they see in everyone. |
You could've changed that last sentence to explain your worldview in more detail, but instead chose to take a dig. That suggests something to me about your potential to teach me anything. |
That wasn't really meant as a dig towards you, even though I was responding to your quote. More of an observation on several people on this board who probably read what I write and automatically think fascist or communist, or socialist, or what not. As to world view I believe that the federal government has supremacy over local ones. I believe that certain things like human rights and education standards should be nationwide otherwise America could become fictionalized on state lines with each American living a different experience based upon what region they live, which would make us a weaker and less United States. I think that many people who want state rights want the right to lash out against things that they don't like and people that they don't like and it would be more used for restriction than freeing things up. Even things like zoning can be used politically, for instance if someone tried to zone against things like a Mosque or anything else they didn't agree with. |
I think many Federalists support the Bill of Rights being incorporated to the States. So that takes care of a unified standard human rights.
Education standards; now typically in America that's a local issue with state supervision. NCLB has changed that a bit, but I'm not as familiar with the issue as others on this board probably are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| [...] each American living a different experience based upon what region they live [...] |
I've always been of the opinion that this is one of the few redeeming qualities America has left. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Freedom is not found in every place conforming to "your" values, which is really what you mean when you say the South would be less free.
Freedom is giving people the opportunity to construct a society and have laws that reflect their beliefs. |
No, thats not freedom. Freedom is something that protects minorities, not necessarily racial, as well as the majority in that area. Plus having widely different laws puts a strain on the union lest we forget why we fought all those years ago. |
You can have Federal minimums (incorporated Bill of Rights) protecting minorities and also administrative decentralization. Tennessee's particular murder statute can exist side by side with the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. You don't endanger someone's civil rights by having zoning ordinances determined at the local level. |
Of course not, zoning is mostly a local issue. I'm not arguing for complete federal control, but many people are arguing for states dominance over the federal government. I don't think in terms of absolute national control, but I guess when many people are so used to thinking in absolutes thats what they see in everyone. |
You could've changed that last sentence to explain your worldview in more detail, but instead chose to take a dig. That suggests something to me about your potential to teach me anything. |
That wasn't really meant as a dig towards you, even though I was responding to your quote. More of an observation on several people on this board who probably read what I write and automatically think fascist or communist, or socialist, or what not. As to world view I believe that the federal government has supremacy over local ones. I believe that certain things like human rights and education standards should be nationwide otherwise America could become fictionalized on state lines with each American living a different experience based upon what region they live, which would make us a weaker and less United States. I think that many people who want state rights want the right to lash out against things that they don't like and people that they don't like and it would be more used for restriction than freeing things up. Even things like zoning can be used politically, for instance if someone tried to zone against things like a Mosque or anything else they didn't agree with. |
I think many Federalists support the Bill of Rights being incorporated to the States. So that takes care of a unified standard human rights.
Education standards; now typically in America that's a local issue with state supervision. NCLB has changed that a bit, but I'm not as familiar with the issue as others on this board probably are. |
The bill of rights is a very good framework, but its not enough. There is a lot of room for different interpretations, as well as things not covered in it. Education is to a large part left to states. I think, I could be wrong, that the Federal government is in charge of setting the number of days, as well as a broad set of standards for the states to meet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| [...] each American living a different experience based upon what region they live [...] |
I've always been of the opinion that this is one of the few redeeming qualities America has left. |
To an extent, it is a very good thing. I'm talking more about things like amounts of rights and standards of education than things like culture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Freedom is something that protects minorities, not necessarily racial, as well as the majority in that area. Plus having widely different laws puts a strain on the union lest we forget why we fought all those years ago. |
You can have Federal minimums (incorporated Bill of Rights) protecting minorities and also administrative decentralization. Tennessee's particular murder statute can exist side by side with the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. You don't endanger someone's civil rights by having zoning ordinances determined at the local level. |
Of course not, zoning is mostly a local issue. I'm not arguing for complete federal control, but many people are arguing for states dominance over the federal government. I don't think in terms of absolute national control, but I guess when many people are so used to thinking in absolutes thats what they see in everyone. |
You could've changed that last sentence to explain your worldview in more detail, but instead chose to take a dig. That suggests something to me about your potential to teach me anything. |
That wasn't really meant as a dig towards you, even though I was responding to your quote. More of an observation on several people on this board who probably read what I write and automatically think fascist or communist, or socialist, or what not. As to world view I believe that the federal government has supremacy over local ones. I believe that certain things like human rights and education standards should be nationwide otherwise America could become fictionalized on state lines with each American living a different experience based upon what region they live, which would make us a weaker and less United States. I think that many people who want state rights want the right to lash out against things that they don't like and people that they don't like and it would be more used for restriction than freeing things up. Even things like zoning can be used politically, for instance if someone tried to zone against things like a Mosque or anything else they didn't agree with. |
I think many Federalists support the Bill of Rights being incorporated to the States. So that takes care of a unified standard human rights.
Education standards; now typically in America that's a local issue with state supervision. NCLB has changed that a bit, but I'm not as familiar with the issue as others on this board probably are. |
The bill of rights is a very good framework, but its not enough. There is a lot of room for different interpretations, as well as things not covered in it. Education is to a large part left to states. I think, I could be wrong, that the Federal government is in charge of setting the number of days, as well as a broad set of standards for the states to meet. |
That's why Federalism is fantastic: the Federal Bill of Rights sets a floor, and individual State Constitutions act as a ceiling. When Kelo v. New London was issued by the Supreme Court, almost every State scrambled to make Eminent Domain to promote economic growth illegal. When SCOTUS gets it wrong, the States can step in and raise the threshold for rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thomas pars
Joined: 29 Jan 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gore Vidal.
"Americas best days are behind her....She'll become the yellow man's burden."
hahahahaha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Education is to a large part left to states. I think, I could be wrong, that the Federal government is in charge of setting the number of days, as well as a broad set of standards for the states to meet |
Yes, you are wrong.
The Federal Government cannot set the number of days, cannot set any standards and cannot even require that the states offer public education at all.
The states often subject themselves to certain requirements of the Federal government in the area of education by accepting Federal programs, money and grants which come with strings (chains) attached.
If a state chooses to opt out of the money, they can abolish public education - and they should. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So many, if not most, of you want the US to be isolationist in its foreign policy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
| So many, if not most, of you want the US to be isolationist in its foreign policy? |
Considering that the US is currently hyper-interventionist right now, a serious dial-down would probably result in merely a balanced foreign policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Education is to a large part left to states. I think, I could be wrong, that the Federal government is in charge of setting the number of days, as well as a broad set of standards for the states to meet |
Yes, you are wrong.
The Federal Government cannot set the number of days, cannot set any standards and cannot even require that the states offer public education at all.
The states often subject themselves to certain requirements of the Federal government in the area of education by accepting Federal programs, money and grants which come with strings (chains) attached.
If a state chooses to opt out of the money, they can abolish public education - and they should. |
Oh, so I am right. No state will refuse that money. Might as well be a mandate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Considering that the US is currently hyper-interventionist right now, a serious dial-down would probably result in merely a balanced foreign policy. |
Besides Afghanistan, where else is the US involved?
| Quote: |
| If a state chooses to opt out of the money, they can abolish public education - and they should. |
Besides the fact that education has become a bureaucratic government job, why should it be abolished? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Considering that the US is currently hyper-interventionist right now, a serious dial-down would probably result in merely a balanced foreign policy. |
Besides Afghanistan, where else is the US involved? |
US troops and bases are almost everywhere. Its excessive.
We only need a few major anchors in Europe and on the Pacific Rim. A robust naval force should do the rest. Or do we think of Alfred Thayer Mahan's geostrategic policy as isolationist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| mc_jc wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Considering that the US is currently hyper-interventionist right now, a serious dial-down would probably result in merely a balanced foreign policy. |
Besides Afghanistan, where else is the US involved? |
US troops and bases are almost everywhere. Its excessive.
We only need a few major anchors in Europe and on the Pacific Rim. A robust naval force should do the rest. Or do we think of Alfred Thayer Mahan's geostrategic policy as isolationist? |
Mahan!
*wipes tear from eye*. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
