Anyway, show me where Clinton has installed big government. When he slashed welfare? Or when he allowed affirmative action to be shot up in some places?

Yet again, a conservative view on welfare is about as backwards as can be. Because wealthy white American males start at one point does not mean everyone does. But, that's such a slap in the face to capitalism, we couldn't possibly admit that.

You've also yet to comment on immigration. Likewise, please explain to me why I cannot smoke a joint or do LSD without the government arresting me.

Also, I know you're not great at history, but explain to me who it was that ended slavery below the Mason Dixon Line and integrated the Alabama schools? Federal or state governments?

The AT&EDPA is explained in another post in another thread. Its where I declare my support (jokingly) for the FARC

------------------
"Here is another word that rhymes with shame" - Kurt Cobain
Blew, Nirvana

No idea what you mean here. Clinton himself wrote in a letter that he loathed the military, if that helps.

"Anyway, show me where Clinton has installed big government."

Well, let's see: tax increases, that huge socialized medicine plan that he would have implemented by now if he could, that idea of his to supply a preschool education for every kid, for starters. The only reason he hasn't implemented all his ideas is that the Rep congress won't let him (thankfully).

"Yet again, a conservative view on welfare is about as backwards as can be. Because wealthy white American males start at one point does not mean everyone does."

What don't liberals get about this: EVERYONE has equal opportuniny. That does NOT guarentee equal outcome. What you put into your life is what you get out of it. Anyone willing to work that CAN work SHOULD work. And everyone short of a quadrapalegic CAN work in some way. It's not survival of those who are born with advantages. It's survival of those who EARN advantages. Except for the extremely small (and yes, it is extremely small, not nearly as large as liberals would have you believe) percentage of people who inherited their money, everyone in this country who has any amount of money earned it (except those on welfare, that is). It's a great idea: you work hard, you're rewarded. Conversley: you don't work, you don't eat (it's in the Bible, if you're interested: 2 Thessalonians 3:10).

"You've also yet to comment on immigration."

I like immigration, as long as it's legal. Let everyone who wants in in, as far as I'm concerned. I consider someone who comes here from Mexico and flips burgers twelve hours a day to support their family far more American that someone who simply refuses to work, and chooses to live off of others instead.

"Likewise, please explain to me why I cannot smoke a joint or do LSD without the government arresting me."

Good question. Who's administration made that illegal, anyway? As far as I'm concerned, if you want to destroy your life, be my guest. It's yours to do with as you please. As long as you don't force it on anyone else.

"I know you're not great at history"

My world history's a little rusty, that's all. My American history's great. (And don't bring up that Che Gueverra guy. He was a remarkably unimportant figure in the history of the west.)

"Explain to me who it was that ended slavery below the Mason Dixon Line and integrated the Alabama schools? Federal or state governments?"

Neither. The end of slavery was due to an ammendment, which is instituted by the people themselves, not the government. The intigration of schools was caused by a supreme court decision, and the Judicial branch is a seperate entity altogether. The federal government and the military simply enforced that decision.

As for that other thread, sorry, but I can't find any explination of those acts. I did find that reference to the terrorist groups, though.

Being blunt, from the tennor of previous posts and questions you've asked, I can say that you don't seem know shite about history. You may be able to spout current political events (with your twist on the explanation) but little that does that a historian make.

"The end of slavery was due to an ammendment, which is instituted by the people themselves, not the government. The intigration of schools was caused by a supreme court decision, and the Judicial branch is a seperate entity altogether. The federal government and the military simply enforced that decision."

The Thirteenth Amendment (Slavery and Involuntary Servitude) was passed using Article V of the Constitution:

"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both House shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution..."

Meaning that it was passed by Congress acting as representatives of the people, like the Federal Government does with all the legislation it passes. In other words it was not passed by the people which would have been more the case through a more public amending process

"...application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments..."

Moreover, the Radical Republicans (wow, there is a term we don't need to use today) passed the 13th Amendment on less than up and up terms. They made sure that the representatives of southern states were not seated and therefore could not vote. Futher, they admitted West Virginia as a state under dubious circumstances so that it could vote affirmative on the amendment.

As to the last part of that, the Federal system includes the jucicial branch as a part of government. The three branches are indeed independent, however, like the much argued Trinity, they all fall under the heading of government.

------------------
It's no use. I guess I'll have to leave all my money to the Egg Advisory Council. Eggs have gotten quite a bad rap lately, you know, Smithers.
~C. Montgomery Burns

to Omega: shakes his head, hey at least DT dislikes Clinton as much as you do . Remember that America is the least political country in the world, meaning that there is very little difference between Republicans and Democrats, while in other places a person called a conservate there, would be very Liberal the US, so someone with views on the far left could see Clinton as Conservate (honestly I say he is a survivour, and that he has no moral center, and no core beliefs, but he is deffinately (sp) not a conservative). Anyway most of the stuff DT believes Clinton has done was actually laws and bills passed by the Republican majority Congress, Bill didn't like most of what you said but he didn't have a choice (or option 2 the opinion polls said what he wanted at first wasn't popular, so he changed his mind and took credit).

Actually at the current levels military spending is the lowest levels in has been since before WWII (that is ajusted for inflasion of course).

BTW while my spelling may be bad, I did learn quite a bit about history in school.

------------------
"Think of all the delightful aspects of the reproductive process: menstruation, pregnancy, labor. And the part we're trying to eliminate is sex?" Cecil Adams the guy who does Straight Dope.

Jay:

"Meaning that it was passed by Congress acting as representatives of the people. In other words it was not passed by the people which would have been more the case through a more public amending process "

Uh, it still had to be passed by the people. 3/4 of the states still have to ratify an ammendment, under any circumstances.

"As to the last part of that, the Federal system includes the jucicial branch as a part of government. The three branches are indeed independent, however, like the much argued Trinity, they all fall under the heading of government."

True, but the judicial system doesn't make laws. It simply interprets and enforces existing ones. The government didn't expand with the decision to integrate schools.

"Being blunt, from the tennor of previous posts and questions you've asked, I can say that you don't seem know shite about history."

I'm a sofomore in high school, and my world history course just got to the ninteenth century. Sue me. Besides, what questions are you talking about?

How did we get here, anyway?

*looks back*

Oh, yeah. It was how the government supposedly got more power when it recognized blacks as equal citizins. That'd be like saying the government would have more power if (when) it outlaws abortion. Effectively, it's an expansion of the definition of humanity, and the enforcement of that definition. That doesn't give the US government any more power. In fact, it gives it less. The government isn't supposed to be able to discriminate based on race, color, creed, or social standing, under any circumstances. ('Course, that pretty much invalidates the stupid idea of a graduated income tax, but that's for another thread.) Thus any laws that reduce someones rights based on anything short of criminal activity are illegal, and should be overturned.

"Likewise, please explain to me why I cannot smoke a joint or do LSD without the government arresting me."

Well while our government does alloy us much freedom, it is against anything that is extremely disruptive, like, drugs which makes people harder to control and act more randomly (which isn't neccessary bad, it's against the very nature of the government). The government wants us to be productive citizens and does what it can to make sure we are (for example, another good question would be why is suicide illegal, I am serious it is, if you try it you can get arrested or put in a mental institution, because it disrupts order). So my final answer to the drugs question is that it would interfere with order.

------------------
"Think of all the delightful aspects of the reproductive process: menstruation, pregnancy, labor. And the part we're trying to eliminate is sex?" Cecil Adams the guy who does Straight Dope.

>"The government isn't supposed to be able to discriminate based on race, color, creed, or social standing, under any circumstances."

But you're against laws that say so, remember? Or was that against laws that say the states and corporations and people can't... in which case, what's the difference?

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

There's something in there that you probably didn't even notice that really bugs me. It's this: you equate laws that say that the government can't discriminate with laws that say businesses can't discriminate. If I run a business and, for whatever stupid reason, choose not to hire hispanics, that's my own darn business, and none of anyone elses. Again, that places the rights of corporations on a lower level than the rights of the individual. I submit that the two are equal, and therefore, that the government has no business intervening in any dispute that does not involve the violation of laws. I think we may need a second bill of rights, to protect the rights of corporations. Anyone else like that idea?

Perhaps you've never needed your HMO.

You are using circular reasoning, there, though. If there WERE laws, then there would be something to violate, hence the ability for the government to get involved.. but WHO do you think MAKES the laws? The Government.

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

Article I, Section 2
"Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)

Article IV, Section 2
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Dred Scott allow slave holders to take slaves into free states and prohibited the slave to sue for freedom at such time. The conclusion not to allow slavery about the line rested in the Missouri Compromise, which in effect Dred Scott declared unsconstitutional.

However, the decision was not unanimous and any decisions by the Court can be rethought and superseded by subsequent decisions. Dred Scott was more a crafted defense of slavery by Chief Justice Taney than anything else.

And quickly, Article I, Section 9 reads:
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Lincoln was well within the Constitution when he susspended Habeas Corpus for sections of Ohio.

~~~~

And I just thought this was funny!

------------------
Smithers, do you realize if I had died, there would be no one to carry on my legacy. Due to my hectic schedule and lethargic sperm, I never fathered an heir. Now I have no one to leave my enormous fortune to. No one.
~C. Montgomery Burns

------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.

Now, you'll say, "Well, corporations could also discriminate against white people" which is true in the sense that, yes, it is possible. However, we deal with more than just possibles. It is also possible that Mexico could invade the US. Should we bomb them now?

And yes, my problems with Clinton are more that he allowed stuff to happen than anything else.

Incidentally, I'm now waiting for my pal Jay and the other liberals to refute the "we all have equal opportunity" bullshit. I feel like I'm hogging the ball (no offence to Ricky Watters intended).

Anyway, above the Mason Dixon Line, most states DID abolish slavery. I live in one. Thankfully, my state was founded by Quakers, a sect of Christianity that doesn't have their heads up their rectums (no, not a contradiction).

Also, I will again look at George Wallace. Now, Omega, I know that you have no problem with black people being denied equal education. But I do. And I don't give a rat's arse what the governor of some backwards state thinks. If it takes the President of the United States to integrate that school, then I'm thankful.

What you damned conservatives don't understand about our constitution is that it is designed to prevent tyranny. The states block the federal government, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BLOCKS THE STATES (I felt caps was neccessary, as you seem not to get this). Now, sure, if you like the idea of denying education to black people (highly inflammatory comment removed) then let us all interpret the constitution the way you do. But for those who like to live in a society where minorities are granted equal rights, then I believe the liberal interpretation is more right on.

And as for your comments about Che, tell that to the current Mexican government. Or, for that matter, tell it to George Bush who would disagree with you.

------------------
"Here is another word that rhymes with shame" - Kurt Cobain
Blew, Nirvana

The phrase "non sequitor" comes to mind. If a white person running a business can deny a black person a job, a black person running a business could do the same thing. Equal opportunity still applies.

"Thus, we NEED the government to make laws giving them the advantage."

Oh, I thought you LIKED the idea of equal opportunity. The government giving anyone an advantage destroys that idea.

"It's also a nice way to pay them back, since I do believe it was white people who enslaved blacks."

Actually, it was mostly blacks who enslaved blacks, who were then sold to the white people. Maybe you should brush up on your history. Care to confirm, Jay? You're suggesting that because my great-great grandfather may have owned a slave, that slave's great-great-grandson should have an economic advantage over me? And what if my grandparents were dirt poor (as they were)? Does that mean I need to be able to demonstrate that my ancestors never owned slaves, so I won't have to accept these economic disadvantages? This is obviously about as dumb an idea as the one that says that someone who's maternal great-grandmother was black can't ride in the white section of a bus because he's black, even though you could never tell by looking. It's the same kind of stupidity, just inflicted on someone else.

"Now, Omega, I know that you have no problem with black people being denied equal education."

Wha... Where the heck did you get that!? I have every problem with it! I've said it several times now: any law that discriminates IN ANY WAY based on race, color, creed, or social standing is unconstitutional, and should not exist. And even if it wasn't unconstitutional, I still would think it was wrong. If a state refuses to abide by a supreme court decision, then they are in rebellion, and it's the president's responsibility to force them to comply, by whatever means nesecary. Thus the forced integration of schools was exactly what was supposed to happen.

Why do you seem to think that I'm against equal rights for minorities? I'm just against SUPERIOR rights for minorities.

"And as for your comments about Che, tell that to the current Mexican government."

The only reference in the encyclopedia article I read on him that involved Mexico is that it's where he met Castro. So either you're confused, or my encyclopedia's missing something important.

And yes, white people did enslave blacks. Over there, they may have been sold into slavery by their fellow man, but it was white people buying them. White people whipping them. White people forcing them to slop pigs and pick cotton. White people who hanged them for trying to rebel. White people who were willing to break apart the Union to keep them enslaves. White people who lynched them in the south. White people who denied them the vote. Whie people who denied them education.

Incidentally, it was also white people who committed the greatest act of genocide ever, destruction of the Natives. Do you deny this?

And of course you don't know about Che's impact, you know nothing about him or non-american politics. You don't even know what's going on in Mexico right now. And you didn't get my Bush reference either.

------------------
"Here is another word that rhymes with shame" - Kurt Cobain
Blew, Nirvana