Mock

Some people are under the impression that politically conservative Mockers are all Republicans. We aren't. I'm not even sure any of us are. Most of us are registered Independents or Libertarians, but what we really believe in is States' Rights. We believe we are a union of states, as intended in the Constitution of the US, not a nation that is under total control of the federal government.

This pissed me tf off:

"Civil rights commission to review Ga. immigration law
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights announced this week that it will look into how new immigration laws in Georgia and several other states are affecting people's civil rights."

Umm, fuck you, feds. We OK'd it in OUR state. That is what WE want. If Pedro and his drug-dealing, violent posse don't like it, they can MOVE to a different state.

States' Rights is the concrete expression of individual freedom. If you don't like the laws and policies in your state, you can move. If you make every state the same, you have to leave the fucking country to escape the bullshit.

10^th Amendment:
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.

(11-25-2011, 06:44 PM)Cracker Wrote: [ -> ]Most of us are registered Independents or Libertarians

I think people would be surprised how many of us are NOT Dems or Repubs.

States' Rights is my number one hot button issue this year. Monies paid in the form of taxes, immigration policy, education policy, health care policy should all be States' Rights issues, not fed issues. If the feds won't protect our borders, they sure as fuck shouldn't be able to make me support the people they let in to this country. If my state says no benefits for illegals, including education, good for my state. Aliens DO NOT have "civil rights." Fuck that. Hard.

I shouldn't be paying 20X more to the feds than I am paying in state taxes. Something is seriously wrong with that. Besides defense and social security (that I will never receive because I have a pension), the feds shouldn't get much of my money. The state in which I reside should get that money.

Most federal mandates are not funded. That means the feds make the rules and states have to pay for it. That is a horrible injustice.

The Feds hold the states hostage with highway money and pet projects. If the states want xx to be a law and the fed does not like it they hold back federal money. Its a freaking mess.

(11-25-2011, 07:24 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]The Feds hold the states hostage with highway money and pet projects. If the states want xx to be a law and the fed does not like it they hold back federal money. Its a freaking mess.

The States could stop this if they only would.

Money flows both ways.

Let's talk about road money, specifically Interstate money (only Interstates are covered with federal monies).

This is it:


This is how it is numbered:


Be aware the Interstate Highway System is really the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways and is to be used FIRST by our military to get equipment, troops, and supplies from airports and ports to bases around the country. Secondly, it is our disaster evacuation route. Third, it is for us for traveling by car.

Fact:

Most of the Interstate System is owned by the State highway agencies, except for about 2,511 miles that are owned by State Toll Commissions (2,494 miles) and Local & Municipal Toll Commissions (17 miles). The Federal Highway Administration owns about 1 mile of Interstate System (the Wilson Bridge crossing the Potomac River).


It is funded primarily from gas taxes collected at the pump. It seems to me, states that collect more taxes have roads that are used more and should be able to collect and use the money without having the feds take a huge chunk out of it for administration costs. We don't need their finger in the pie. (Those fuel taxes also pay for mass transit and leaking gas tanks. Same principle applies.)

According to the Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration's website, this is their number one objective:

Objective 1 — Recovery Act: Implement the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

What the fuck does that mean? WTF?

After some reading, only about 40% of the taxes collected as fuel tax (which are intended to maintain roads) are actually used to maintain roads. Jesus Christ, we are all asleep at the wheel.

Regarding Obama's budget: He fucked with the math and used a 10-year PROJECTION to show how he was cutting spending. In truth, he isn't cutting shit. PLUS, the budget calls for a .15 INCREASE in fuel taxes. That means more taxes, just not income taxes. He is a sneaky fucker. Don't be fooled AGAIN, tards who voted for him last time. He is robbing working Americans to pay for the homies in the cities. The bad part about that is they are useless except for making more homies. Do that math... No wonder they can't agree on anything. I wouldn't vote for that shit, either. I like this part, "This projection does not calculate in an extension of tax cuts for job creators — this is an projected increase in taxes starting in the first year of President Obama’s replacement."

He combined funding for the DOT with HUD to be funneled to the inner cities. The inner cities are money pits that don't generate income, just votes and more tax liability.

Let's stop paying for lazy people. Let's invest in productive citizens (not aliens) only. Then Cracker will STFU.

(11-25-2011, 06:44 PM)Cracker Wrote: [ -> ]Umm, fuck you, feds. We OK'd it in OUR state. That is what WE want.

There are limits to what a State can enact as law, despite their independent rights. For example, no matter how much the residents of your State wanted it, or how well your officials OK'd it, you still couldn't/shouldn't have laws making slavery or rape legal. You couldn't just decide to take away the First Amendment rights, jail people just for being Italian or Jewish, or make it legal to kill gay people, just because you could fashion such a law.

At some point, your State's stupidity can't trump basic individual rights.

I think some things should belong to the states and some others to the Fed. For instance:
Drivers Licenses, Why the hell do we need 50 different ones? Same roads go through many states, Stop means stop, yeild means yeild, Speed limit....
CCW permits...same thing, its a 2^nd ammendment to own and bear arms, individual states should not need to be different, cities and municipalities damn sure don't need their finger in it.
Immigration, why does it need to be different here then there?

Answer, because the Fed SUX at getting things done. Gun laws are getting better, more CCW states than before, more rights to gun owners, Good
Licenses, WTF?
States have HAD to enact tough immigration laws because the FED refuses to, OMG, can't piss off our biggest possible constituants (NEWS FLASH, They are Illegal, that can't fukin vote! Kick them out!

(11-26-2011, 10:38 AM)Middle Finger Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-25-2011, 06:44 PM)Cracker Wrote: [ -> ]Umm, fuck you, feds. We OK'd it in OUR state. That is what WE want.

There are limits to what a State can enact as law, despite their independent rights. For example, no matter how much the residents of your State wanted it, or how well your officials OK'd it, you still couldn't/shouldn't have laws making slavery or rape legal. You couldn't just decide to take away the First Amendment rights, jail people just for being Italian or Jewish, or make it legal to kill gay people, just because you could fashion such a law.

At some point, your State's stupidity can't trump basic individual rights.

All Good Points! The key is common sense. The human rights you talk about are all based on protection from harm by others, all good.
Immigration is another matter, the Fed is not enforcing immigration laws or policies allowing the constant stream of them in here. Some states feed the problem. Other states have opted to Protect Their people from harm by these outsiders. That harm is financial, security etc, Every bit as important as protecting them from rape and murder.

(11-26-2011, 10:38 AM)Middle Finger Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-25-2011, 06:44 PM)Cracker Wrote: [ -> ]Umm, fuck you, feds. We OK'd it in OUR state. That is what WE want.

There are limits to what a State can enact as law, despite their independent rights. For example, no matter how much the residents of your State wanted it, or how well your officials OK'd it, you still couldn't/shouldn't have laws making slavery or rape legal. You couldn't just decide to take away the First Amendment rights, jail people just for being Italian or Jewish, or make it legal to kill gay people, just because you could fashion such a law.

At some point, your State's stupidity can't trump basic individual rights.

What? That was some crazy liberal left-field straw man shit.

My post was about illegal immigrants and the services they receive at the cost of taxpayers. Georgia is already feeding/housing/treating/educating tons and tons of poor white trash and ghetto blacks. We can't afford to do the same for illegals.

Why should ANY state pay for ANY benefits for people who aren't supposed to be here when people who ARE supposed to be here are losing everything?

If my state figures the benefits DO NOT outweigh the cost, why can't we enact laws that protect our state? Why not?

The violation of humanitarian laws argument you posted has nothing to do with states' rights.

I would imagine that Immigration policy is a national/Federal issue because it is a border/national security issue dealing with those coming into our Nation and becoming citizens of the Nation, not a particular State. So it makes sense that is would involve or be governed by the Fed. If common sense is now the definition of Liberal, then call me that if you have the emotional need to label things nice and neat like a primitive. Otherwise, I go by the issues, not aligning with a particular Party or group.

The Fed should police the border, but once they get in, it is a state issue. Only because it affects the states ability to govern their own state. Now right there is some gooblygook and a bit of doublespeak avoidance of responsibility and commitment. Nobody on the left wants immigration control because when they (the immigrants) can suck off the government tit, they are just about zombies voting via family need for mothers milk from a dead cow. Common sense has left the building, and the shutoff mechanism has been removed. Shut out immigration for 3 yrs until we get back on out feet again.
Otherwise we will end up like Germany right now.

A Frenchman, a Spaniard and an Italian go into a bar. Who pays the tab?

A German!

This is how WWI got started, dammit!