h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

That editorial is actually rather old and reprinted, just so people know that. I've read a reprint of it last year myself.

You GOTTA BE KIDDING!!!

Moderators - I have never really opposed moderation on h2g2. But could I please have an explanation for this?

Okay, don't agree with the article. I'd just like to know whatever you saw in it that you felt was so threatening.

Perium - where did you post it?

Here!!!!!!

And My Space.


As far as how old it is....
Hey, oldie but goodie.

I agree whole heartedly.

I'm not pointing out its initial publication date to discredit any of the sentiments expressed inside it. Just to explain to people why a few of the factual statements in there are no longer entirely true (eg, Airbus also makes planes now). I think it was originally printed in the 70s or 80s. Thats's all.

I'm not pointing out its initial publication date to discredit any of the sentiments expressed inside it. Just to explain to people why a few of the factual statements in there are no longer entirely true (eg, Airbus also makes planes now). I think it was originally printed in the 70s or 80s. Thats's all.

They were probaly worried about copyright

I care little for the War on Drugs. I do think that the federal government has a legitimate interest in the interstate transportation of illegal narcotics through the interstate commerce clause. The decision to outlaw the narcotics should rest with the states.

I think it should be like the way we regulate alcohol in Georgia. Georgia allows alcohol use, but counties can become dry if they want it, and the state will back them up.

I can't find a justification for Social Security, welfare, etc. I question the justification for NASA (although I'm quite fond of space exploration).

I do like the newspaper article.

Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron
When it's a choice between two evils, I always pick the one I've never tried before. - Mae West

Thank you, Zorpheus, for posting this.

As a Canadian, it has been my pleasure to know many US citizens.

And I will add that, despite petty bickering over fish and trees and the like, the vast majority of my fellow Canadians are proud to be northern neighbours to the USA

Peace

I agree it is not a federally granted power and should be up to the states (as alcohol is). Interesting that you mention interstates... as they are a twist of federal power as well... (not that I don't like them) only falls under federal powers as a way to speed internal troop movement.

So, TBTPM (post #507):

You would prefer a system wherein someone who needs, say, marijuana for its appetite-stimulating properties (and its non-addictive properties) would have to travel to some other state to get what might be a life-saving drug? I have a person with that kind of need in my family, and I can assure you that leaving such a decision up to the 'free and independant' states would create as big a mess and black market as the one we have now - only local and therefore more petty (aka: worse).

Social Security and 'welfare' are because we are all on this planet together, and what helps you utimately helps me and everybody else. In grade school, we called this outlook "to share."

I understand that in Cobb County, Georgia, you are not allowed to buy a house unless you own a gun. Who's invading whose rights, now?

(I disagree competely with the idea that conservative thinking has ever accomplished anything of benefit to the human race, but no one would fight harder than I for your right to think otherwise.)

-7rob7

7rob7, YES! Exactly.

"We have a Consitution in this country. I don't agree with the way democrats have twisted it, but it's far superior. "

Democrats aren't trying to twist the constitution, they are trying to evolve it. To keep it a living, breathing documents that addresses our times and still reflects the spirit of the founding fathers.

The republicans want to keep the constitution a document that follows the exact letter of the federal papers and other documents of the age in which it was written.

We as a people cannot continue to grow, change and improve if we are not willing to bring our constitution into growth and change with us. We must preserve the spirit of liberty and equality but we must also expand it to include taking care of our fellow man and uplifting those who were deliberately shut out of the original intent of the constitution, for example...Black Americans. The preamble clearly says "All men are created equal", yet it was written by a man who owned close to 500 slaves and had about a dozen slave children by his slave mistress.

If we stick only the the exact intent of the originators of the document then we limit ourselves. We can have strong federal AND strong state government, but too often in the past years proponents of strong state have also come to embrace causes that severely limit individual rights and civil liberties.

Well put. Absolutely.

Phil, I must know...

Dubya esse delendum???

Section 8 requires the Congress to:

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

I'd think that would establish their authority to make roads. I'm of the opinion that it creates the authority for them to create a national police force to patrol those roads. Though I wouldn't support it, I've never understood why they didn't.

I don't buy the argument that marijuana is a medication. States are supposed to have general legislative authority to govern their own affairs. If they want to outlaw it, that's their business.

I call welfare subsidizing failure. I don't care to reward poor decision-making. I wouldn't be as opposed to welfare if it was funded by the states. I wouldn't be opposed to it if it took the form of some form of a loan. Help a person back on their feet, and in a few years, they can start paying the government back.

It's Kennesaw, GA, which is in Cobb County. Any person can opt out of the gun ownership 'requirement'. OTOH, it shows how silly gun control is. Most every household owns a firearm, yet the crime rate is low.

Don't worry; conservatives with guns will stand by to maintain your right to free speech.

Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron
If a country is worth living in, it is worth fighting for. - Manning Coles

Me, too.

(BTW, Charlotte, thanks for taking the time to articulate what I was starting to scratch the surface of...)

First off, the Constitution doesn't say, "All men are created equal." That's the Declaration of Independence.

If you want the Constitution to change, then the proper way to do it, is to amend it. There are provisions for that.

In 1868, we amended it to state, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

If we decide, on a whim, to make it mean something else or ignore provisions of it, then the document is diminished, as is the rule of law.

When a state ignores the provisions of the 14th Amendment, then it is proper for the federal government to take action to ensure that the rights of the people are upheld. However, if the nosy federal government is the one who is abusing our rights then we have no one to appeal to. That's why I think the states should be primarily responsible for the functions of government as outlined in the Constitution, and the feds should be there to help when they don't.

Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron
There's an old proverb that says just about whatever you want it to.

Us liberal, progressive, left wingnuts have to stick together

I'll get the cruelty-free glue.

"First off, the Constitution doesn't say, "All men are created equal." That's the Declaration of Independence."

Which is part and parcel of our constitution and a foundation of our government.

"If you want the Constitution to change, then the proper way to do it, is to amend it. There are provisions for that. "

The constitution can also change and *grow* through interpretation and application in modern times.

"If we decide, on a whim, to make it mean something else or ignore provisions of it, then the document is diminished, as is the rule of law."

I disagree. Nothing addressing the constitution is done on a whim. Interpretations are very carefully balanced but they *must* apply to our needs *today*, not to the needs of people two hundred years ago.

"However, if the nosy federal government is the one who is abusing our rights then we have no one to appeal to."

We have a supreme court that will always intercede on behalf of the individual as long as it is not stacked with people who believe that individual rights are worthless. When you put the State government above the federal then you negate the ability of the FEDERAL court to protect anyone.

The federal must be above the state, we are a union, not small countries who just happen to crowd together under one flag.

The Constitution still doesn't say that all men are created equal men are created equal. See you just stapled another document to the Constitution.

The Constitution has a proper method for modifying it. You want a change to the powers of the federal government, there's a way to do it. I don't think we should allow Congress to do whatever the heck it wants.

I didn't say that the states should be superior to the federal government. I said that they should do most of the governing, and the federal government should be a check on the states.

I think the Constituion suits our needs quite well.