Rand Paul "Freedom Speech" at Berkeley.

[Viritica]

What would you consider a small government to be?

one that I might support?.... maybe cutting the military budget it half and stopping all the research into bigger and better ways of killing people. cutting back on foreign military bases. maybe cutting back on some of the social engineering and instead consolidating all of our safety net spending into one or two income support programs, trusting recipients to run their own lives.

I don't really thinking cutting military spending would be a good idea. Withdrawing from our foreign military bases would be fine but countries like Russia and China are increasing their military spending and building up their armies. In days of uncertainty like today we need to retain a strong military.

[Pilotto]

Try reading the Constitution sometime before you comment on American politics.

Do please enlighten me.

I've tried before. It was a waste of time.

[Ashmoria]

one that I might support?.... maybe cutting the military budget it half and stopping all the research into bigger and better ways of killing people. cutting back on foreign military bases. maybe cutting back on some of the social engineering and instead consolidating all of our safety net spending into one or two income support programs, trusting recipients to run their own lives.

So basically isolationism?

maybe. im not a real small government advocate. but when the congress was all "we have to cut back on this out of control spending" the only thing I would really agree with is stopping our out of control military spending.

[Ashmoria]

one that I might support?.... maybe cutting the military budget it half and stopping all the research into bigger and better ways of killing people. cutting back on foreign military bases. maybe cutting back on some of the social engineering and instead consolidating all of our safety net spending into one or two income support programs, trusting recipients to run their own lives.

I don't really thinking cutting military spending would be a good idea. Withdrawing from our foreign military bases would be fine but countries like Russia and China are increasing their military spending and building up their armies. In days of uncertainty like today we need to retain a strong military.

maybe. but a strong military increases the likelihood that we'll use it. kinda like mr bush did in Iraq.

[Viritica]

I don't really thinking cutting military spending would be a good idea. Withdrawing from our foreign military bases would be fine but countries like Russia and China are increasing their military spending and building up their armies. In days of uncertainty like today we need to retain a strong military.

maybe. but a strong military increases the likelihood that we'll use it. kinda like mr bush did in Iraq.

Which is why we should exercise restraint and use it only when absolutely necessary.

[Ifreann]

Do please enlighten me.

I've tried before. It was a waste of time.

Uh oh, someone just checked and couldn't find "states rights" anywhere in the Constitution.

[Kelinfort]

one that I might support?.... maybe cutting the military budget it half and stopping all the research into bigger and better ways of killing people. cutting back on foreign military bases. maybe cutting back on some of the social engineering and instead consolidating all of our safety net spending into one or two income support programs, trusting recipients to run their own lives.

I don't really thinking cutting military spending would be a good idea. Withdrawing from our foreign military bases would be fine but countries like Russia and China are increasing their military spending and building up their armies. In days of uncertainty like today we need to retain a strong military.

That's always going to be the argument; if you wish to reduce the deficit effectively, you need to keep all options on the table.

[Viritica]

They have the right to govern themselves on issues that the federal government hasn't ruled on.

And where is that written?

---

Try reading the Constitution sometime before you comment on American politics.

Do please enlighten me.

The 10th Amendment. Try reading up on it, would ya?

[Viritica]

I don't really thinking cutting military spending would be a good idea. Withdrawing from our foreign military bases would be fine but countries like Russia and China are increasing their military spending and building up their armies. In days of uncertainty like today we need to retain a strong military.

That's always going to be the argument; if you wish to reduce the deficit effectively, you need to keep all options on the table.

Which is why we should reduce the number of foreign military bases abroad. That seems to be an easy way to reduce spending without having to cut back on military numbers.

[Kelinfort]

And where is that written?

---

Do please enlighten me.

The 10th Amendment. Try reading up on it, would ya?

you do realize the states act more dictatorial? They have more power to oppress the minority, more power to keep their policies enforced, and a more homogenous voter base.

[Pilotto]

So basically isolationism?

maybe. im not a real small government advocate. but when the congress was all "we have to cut back on this out of control spending" the only thing I would really agree with is stopping our out of control military spending.

I'm sure our allies would be thrilled with your proposal.

[Viritica]

The 10th Amendment. Try reading up on it, would ya?

you do realize the states act more dictatorial? They have more power to oppress the minority, more power to keep their policies enforced, and a more homogeneous voter base.

Which is why the 6th Amendment defines federal law as the "supreme law of the land".

The federal government and the Constitution keep them in check.

[Viritica]

I've tried before. It was a waste of time.

Uh oh, someone just checked and couldn't find "states rights" anywhere in the Constitution.

Or he just got tired of explaining the 10th Amendment to you.

[Pilotto]

I've tried before. It was a waste of time.

Uh oh, someone just checked and couldn't find "states rights" anywhere in the Constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The tenth amendment.

[Kelinfort]

you do realize the states act more dictatorial? They have more power to oppress the minority, more power to keep their policies enforced, and a more homogeneous voter base.

Which is why the 6th Amendment defines federal law as the "supreme law of the land".

The federal government and the Constitution keep them in check.

To a point. What power do the Feds have to enforce laws that the states define themselves? None. Especially when the states rights crowd repeals the legislation they see as not within the purview of the Federal Government. The Law of the Land would neither be strong nor effective. Which leads to more oppressive, powerful state governments.

[Viritica]

Which is why the 6th Amendment defines federal law as the "supreme law of the land".

The federal government and the Constitution keep them in check.

To a point. What power do the Feds have to enforce laws that the states define themselves? None. Especially when the states rights crowd repeals the legislation they see as not within the purview of the Federal Government. The Law of the Land would neither be strong nor effective.

They can bitch all they want to but once the federal government passes a law the states have to abide by it. Both the federal government and the states have to abide by the Constitution.

[Ifreann]

And where is that written?

---

Do please enlighten me.

The 10th Amendment. Try reading up on it, would ya?

You mean the one that talks about powers, not rights, thus supporting what I said? I've read it.

[Pilotto]

The 10th Amendment. Try reading up on it, would ya?

You mean the one that talks about powers, not rights, thus supporting what I said? I've read it.

Please tell me, what exactly is the difference between a power and a right?

[Viritica]

The 10th Amendment. Try reading up on it, would ya?

You mean the one that talks about powers, not rights, thus supporting what I said? I've read it.

You mean the one that gives the states the power and thus the right to rule on issues that the federal government hasn't ruled on?

I don't think you have. I don't consider you to be much of an authority on American politics.

[Kelinfort]

To a point. What power do the Feds have to enforce laws that the states define themselves? None. Especially when the states rights crowd repeals the legislation they see as not within the purview of the Federal Government. The Law of the Land would neither be strong nor effective.

They can bitch all they want to but once the federal government passes a law the states have to abide by it. Both the federal government and the states have to abide by the Constitution.

Of course. What I'm merely saying is the problem comes when you have a pro states rights legislature in control of Congress and the Supreme Court. The division of power we do have now is about right for the nation. However, if the majority of the states rights crowd had their way, there would be no Civil Rights act of 1957/1964, no freedom of choice, and a whole host of other problems. This in fact increases government and tyranny on the individuals in those states. The balance we have now is good, but we can't forget the lessons of the past.

[Pilotto]

You mean the one that talks about powers, not rights, thus supporting what I said? I've read it.

You mean the one that gives the states the power and thus the right to rule on issues that the federal government hasn't ruled on?

I don't think you have. I don't consider you to be much of an authority on American politics.

I've debated Ifreann before. His willful ignorance is nauseating. Don't take him seriously.

[Viritica]

They can bitch all they want to but once the federal government passes a law the states have to abide by it. Both the federal government and the states have to abide by the Constitution.

Of course. What I'm merely saying is the problem comes when you have a pro states rights legislature in control of Congress and the Supreme Court. The division of power we do have now is about right for the nation. However, if the majority of the states rights crowd had their way, there would be no Civil Rights act of 1957/1964, no freedom of choice, and a whole host of other problems. This in fact increases government and tyranny on the individuals in those states. The balance we have now is good, but we can't forget the lessons of the past.

I fully agree with you. States do have rights, but the federal government has authority over them and they need to remember that.

[Viritica]

You mean the one that gives the states the power and thus the right to rule on issues that the federal government hasn't ruled on?

I don't think you have. I don't consider you to be much of an authority on American politics.

I've debated Ifreann before. His willful ignorance is nauseating. Don't take him seriously.

Trust me, my friend, I know.

[Pilotto]

They can bitch all they want to but once the federal government passes a law the states have to abide by it. Both the federal government and the states have to abide by the Constitution.

Of course. What I'm merely saying is the problem comes when you have a pro states rights legislature in control of Congress and the Supreme Court. The division of power we do have now is about right for the nation. However, if the majority of the states rights crowd had their way, there would be no Civil Rights act of 1957/1964, no freedom of choice, and a whole host of other problems. This in fact increases government and tyranny on the individuals in those states. The balance we have now is good, but we can't forget the lessons of the past.

Things like the Civil Rights act are within the purview of the Federal Government. The states cannot violate the Constitution.

[Kelinfort]

Of course. What I'm merely saying is the problem comes when you have a pro states rights legislature in control of Congress and the Supreme Court. The division of power we do have now is about right for the nation. However, if the majority of the states rights crowd had their way, there would be no Civil Rights act of 1957/1964, no freedom of choice, and a whole host of other problems. This in fact increases government and tyranny on the individuals in those states. The balance we have now is good, but we can't forget the lessons of the past.

I fully agree with you. States do have rights, but the federal government has authority over them and they need to remember that.

There always needs to be a balance and what we have now is good. Then again, if you shift too far towards states rights, then you end up with more oppression of the minority.