Reply With QuoteIronic that you assume to know the make-up of European national politics all the way from your own location. And i've seen YOUR sources.Originally Posted by [WDW]Megaraptor
Its called common sense. Are you going to tell me that the USA is this ultra anti racist country were not even in the smallest ****hole of a town some racist retard could be elected?
If thats so the hawks in the various US governments were right. The USA is the absolute heaven on earth that needs to be brought to everyone on the whole earth, even to US allies.
But i can imagine that its not like that.
Ironic that you assume to know the make-up of European national politics all the way from your own location. And i've seen YOUR sources.
Most Europeans think politics is a joke in the US. Ron Paul a honorable statesman who actually understands economics gets ridiculed by the jockstrap douchebag tv anchors that never finished college..
Great success...
Not knowing a thing about foreign countries has never stopped any american from judging them, as Rick Santorum has proven
Megaraptor was going on about how racists are sitting in parliaments in Europe and how that could never happen in the US.
My point is that people who have been campaigning on the issue of "States' rights" have (sometimes, not always) used that term as a fig leaf for racist views. The reasoning apparently is that Washington has no business with individual states' legislature, even if said legislature - just by coincidence, of course - has provisions for a certain "peculiar institution", or, more recently, segregation. In other words, people are deliberately bringing up civil war era issues from time to time. (Strange how states' rights is never an issue when California is drafting environmental protection regulations. But that's a different matter altogether.)
Your logic is dated. States rights is not about racism, but keeping power localised as much as possible. I am a strong proponent for states rights; including California's right to be the way they are (just don't try to force us to be like them).
For your edification. States rights is not a War Between the States era issue as you suggested. It goes back to our country's founding. We were a confederacy before we grudgingly gave more power to the federal government.
I did not want suggest that states' rights somehow was a less than legit issue. Only that it has been used - at times- as a code word for racist views in the past, and not only in the 19th century, but considerably later as well.
![[WDW]Megaraptor's Avatar](image.php?s=674f23c95679466f67c7afd9f3b778aa&u=30547&dateline=1171465900 "[WDW]Megaraptor's Avatar")
Umm...have you seen the public media floggings that anyone who says anything remotely racially insensitive has to go through? We are a nation where a DC city councilman was forced to resign for correctly using the non-racially related word "niggardly" in a sentence.
That's not to say that we don't have prejudiced people here. But public opinion has driven their views underground. They can't express themselves publicly, certainly not as public figures, without career-ending backlash.
The fact that euros think Ron Paul is an honorable statesman who understands economics worries most of us...
Do many people in Europe really think that way? Do they really want to abolish the entire welfare state structure and embrace radical Austrian School laissez-faire economics like Ron Paul?
Last edited by [WDW]Megaraptor; 02-27-2012 at 12:42 PM.
I wish more people would recognise this fact.We were a confederacy before we grudgingly gave more power to the federal government.
What surprises me is that Rick Santorum is in a way a lot more "European" than most Republicans.
He's a catholic conservative.
When John F. Kennedy ran for president, a lot of conservatives worried about the Pope and divided loyalties of a catholic president.
Now the same people support Santorum.
Ironically, Kennedy wasn't very religious and certainly not the Pope's man while Santorum is a knight of the Order of Opus Dei.
And Kennedy's Pope was the one who called the 2nd Vatican council while Santorum's Pope is the former head of the (renamed) Inquisition.
No it wasn't used as a "code word." They didn't need to sugarcoat anything back then, but it possibly was used as justification. And I'm not even sure if that was a violation of the Constitution at the time. Certainly if someone tried today (say, a governor) to discriminate against a group and use states rights as justification, it would be a misapplication of the concept as states do not have the right to violate the Constitution (would most likely be a violation of the Bill of Rights).
The encyclopedia of Alabama disagrees with you on this one.
http://encyclopediaofalabama.org/fac....jsp?id=h-2367
In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace took a states' rights position in his attempt to prevent the admission of African American students to the University of Alabama. Alabama advocates of African American rights found no appreciable support from within the state's dominant political culture, so they turned to help from outside the state, particularly the federal government. In the ensuing actions, the federal government used incorporation and an expansive interpretation of the commerce clause in the Constitution to overrule state laws on segregation throughout Alabama and the South, including segregation in schools and private business establishments. The term still appears on occasion in political speech, in some cases as code language indicating support of discriminatory practices or outright racism; as a result, its use is often met with skepticism or suspicion by the public at large.
Wait, isn't that one of the core principles of US conservatism?
F*cking moron just called the President a "snob" for wanting college to be available for everyone. He thinks college graduates don't have the religious fervor that he wears like some kind of badge. Bear in mind this douche has a couple of degrees himself....
I guess I am a snob.
Posting Permissions
