Note that the purpose is "to secure these rights". Rights take precedent over the consent of the governed.
Reread that passage again. Governments derive their "just Powers" from the consent of the governed. Without the consent of the governed, there is nothing to secure the rights which were "endowed by their Creator".
Let's look at the passage again:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed . ..---Declaration of Independence
If all men are created equal, why should the vote of someone in Montana carry more weight than someone in Chicago?
Plus, we have the inarguable fact that whenever federal rights have prevailed over states' rights, people have benefited. Whenever states have prevailed over federal rights, people have suffered.
It's the United States of America, not the United People of America.
A slogan is no way to run a country. And why should we artificially create a system where every state has equal worth. Your precious Declaration of Independence didn't say anything about all states being created equal.
No, the constitution was written such that complete trust didnt extend to anything. The electoral college is a checks-and-balance against the voter.
So, complete trust in the electoral college then? Complete trust in the Constitution? And why would a nation desire "checks-and-balances" against it's own citizens except to oppress? What about consent of the governed?
Take the legalized marijuana stuff. If you ignore Federal overreach, the status of legality in each state is probably what it should be at this point in time. Making decisions for all states all at once isn't good practice.
The Trump Justice Department is ratcheting up the anti-marijuana laws, even in states where weed is legal. If you want to effectively change marijuana laws, they have to be changed nationwide.
The last 200 years is a case study in the failures of federalism. Every major achievement has been because the central government has forced its will on the states, from the end of slavery to the New Deal to interstate highways to civil rights to voting rights. Where the states have exerted their will, it's almost always been to the detriment of people.
Better than having the cities decide and turning america into the next sweden or germany.
That's why we need a truly multi-party popular voting, instant-runoff system. Let everyone's vote count the same. And have automatic voter registration for all citizens.
But you still vote with your wallet. You tell the elite puppeteers what you think by not buying crap their company owns.
I agree, but "voting with your wallet" cannot touch the truly entrenched power structure. What products do I buy or not buy to prevent Goldman Sachs from running the government?
Buy local, be local. Might not really matter either, but you are going to wear clothes, eat food, and talk to your friends anyway; you can think about those choices.
On the other hand, pretty much nobody in the establishment wanted Trump to win, he spent a fraction of what Hilary spent on her campaign, and he won. Not saying he's a good candidate, but there isn't a 1:1 relationship between who the establishment wants, and who actually gets in.
And yet, that same establishment is sitting down to eat at the feast.
I think this says more about the kabuki-show of voting in the US than it does about young people. Too many people 18-34 have figured out that voting has little or nothing to do with who ends up in power. You can vote for "outsiders" and "change agents" and you still end up with some guy from Goldman Sachs making decisions about your life while he flies his trophy wife to Fort Knox to perform some satanic sexual ritual over the gold during a total eclipse.
Seriously, a show of hands: in an age of gerrymandered, electoral colleged, voter suppressed, primary rigged, black box voting machine, foreign government influenced elections, where the guy who loses the vote gets to rule, who wouldn't give up their right to this meaningless exercise in exchange for the forgiveness of $100,000.00 in debt?
but this particular somebody seems to have invented a weapon that nobody else has even thought of.
Targeted sonic weapons were thought of a long time ago. There are examples in science fiction literature from before WWII, and even hack writers like Ayn Rand used the idea in one of her trashy dime novels (Atlas Shrugged).
Who else would have motive and the belief that pushing back US relations with Cuba would benefit them somehow?
I'm just going to throw this out there: When Batista was overthrown by Castro and Co, they nationalized the hotels and casinos that were owned by gangsters and shady real estate developers. Can you think of any current prominent Americans that are in the hotel and casino business who might seek to open up shop in Cuba should there be some sort of invasion or regime change in Cuba? Maybe a shady real estate developer who might have some influence at the State Department and with US intelligence agencies?
As always, follow the money. Money means more than politics in 2017.
On the serious side, cook yer gadamned food properly and wash your hands after doing shit like taking a crap, or petting pigs, and then all you'll have to worry about is everything else.
Your insistence upon these elitist behaviors is the reason your side lost the 2016 election.
Last week, acting on a tip, we logged into Facebook’s automated ad system to see if “Jew hater” was really an ad category. We found it, but discovered that the category — with only 2,274 people in it — was too small for Facebook to allow us to buy an ad pegged only to Jew haters.
Facebook’s automated system suggested “Second Amendment” as an additional category that would boost our audience size to 119,000 people, presumably because its system had correlated gun enthusiasts with anti-Semites.
The site shows users how Facebook categorizes them. It doesn’t reveal the data it is buying about their offline lives. Instead, we chose additional categories that popped up when we typed in “jew h”: “How to burn Jews,” and “History of ‘why jews ruin the world.’” Then we added a category that Facebook suggested when we typed in “Hitler”: a category called “Hitler did nothing wrong.” All were described as “fields of study.”
Per https://www.usgovernmentdebt.u... [usgovernmentdebt.us] You are correct for state debt to state debt; but, wrong for state and local to state and local. Tim S.
OK, I"ll play. If you want compare state and local combined, then Texas has a MUCH worse debt-to-GDP ratio than California. So does Kansas, South Carolina, Arizona. In fact, using your metric, California has a lower debt-to-GDP ratio than all the states combined.
Plus, it's California, and the weather here is absolutely perfect today.
A corporation without a union is still an aggregation of labor
No, it's a corporation with a bunch of individual workers.
There are only two checks on corporate power: the government or labor unions. We have historical data on what happens when corporate power is unchecked by either. It was sarcastically referred to as the "Gilded Age".
Slashdot Mirror
When you were born on third base and think you hit a home run.
https://youtu.be/Kn283OjPb1g
Reread that passage again. Governments derive their "just Powers" from the consent of the governed. Without the consent of the governed, there is nothing to secure the rights which were "endowed by their Creator".
Let's look at the passage again:
If all men are created equal, why should the vote of someone in Montana carry more weight than someone in Chicago?
Plus, we have the inarguable fact that whenever federal rights have prevailed over states' rights, people have benefited. Whenever states have prevailed over federal rights, people have suffered.
A slogan is no way to run a country. And why should we artificially create a system where every state has equal worth. Your precious Declaration of Independence didn't say anything about all states being created equal.
Your family has been looking for a reason for a long time.
So, complete trust in the electoral college then? Complete trust in the Constitution? And why would a nation desire "checks-and-balances" against it's own citizens except to oppress? What about consent of the governed?
The Trump Justice Department is ratcheting up the anti-marijuana laws, even in states where weed is legal. If you want to effectively change marijuana laws, they have to be changed nationwide.
The last 200 years is a case study in the failures of federalism. Every major achievement has been because the central government has forced its will on the states, from the end of slavery to the New Deal to interstate highways to civil rights to voting rights. Where the states have exerted their will, it's almost always been to the detriment of people.
You are correct. The Constitution was written to protect the aristocracy above all.
Goldman Sachs doesn't give mortgages, car loans, credit cards, consumer loans.
That's why we need a truly multi-party popular voting, instant-runoff system. Let everyone's vote count the same. And have automatic voter registration for all citizens.
I agree, but "voting with your wallet" cannot touch the truly entrenched power structure. What products do I buy or not buy to prevent Goldman Sachs from running the government?
Absolutely.
And yet, that same establishment is sitting down to eat at the feast.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
I think this says more about the kabuki-show of voting in the US than it does about young people. Too many people 18-34 have figured out that voting has little or nothing to do with who ends up in power. You can vote for "outsiders" and "change agents" and you still end up with some guy from Goldman Sachs making decisions about your life while he flies his trophy wife to Fort Knox to perform some satanic sexual ritual over the gold during a total eclipse.
Seriously, a show of hands: in an age of gerrymandered, electoral colleged, voter suppressed, primary rigged, black box voting machine, foreign government influenced elections, where the guy who loses the vote gets to rule, who wouldn't give up their right to this meaningless exercise in exchange for the forgiveness of $100,000.00 in debt?
Well, that's the myth at least. We won't know for sure until we see those tax returns.
Targeted sonic weapons were thought of a long time ago. There are examples in science fiction literature from before WWII, and even hack writers like Ayn Rand used the idea in one of her trashy dime novels (Atlas Shrugged).
I'm just going to throw this out there: When Batista was overthrown by Castro and Co, they nationalized the hotels and casinos that were owned by gangsters and shady real estate developers. Can you think of any current prominent Americans that are in the hotel and casino business who might seek to open up shop in Cuba should there be some sort of invasion or regime change in Cuba? Maybe a shady real estate developer who might have some influence at the State Department and with US intelligence agencies?
As always, follow the money. Money means more than politics in 2017.
Your insistence upon these elitist behaviors is the reason your side lost the 2016 election.
And men to post on 4chan.
Oh, you sweet, summer child...
You shouldn't have any problem, as long as you don't name the sheep, "Alexa".
You gotta fight...for your right...to be a white supremacist nazi piece of shit.
Yeah, and it's those damn (((developers))) that come up with them algorithms.
The devil is in the details:
OK, I"ll play. If you want compare state and local combined, then Texas has a MUCH worse debt-to-GDP ratio than California. So does Kansas, South Carolina, Arizona. In fact, using your metric, California has a lower debt-to-GDP ratio than all the states combined.
Plus, it's California, and the weather here is absolutely perfect today.
Wisconsin has a worse debt-to-GDP ratio than California.
Privacy laws will also cause you to become sterile. You can look it up.
No, it's a corporation with a bunch of individual workers.
There are only two checks on corporate power: the government or labor unions. We have historical data on what happens when corporate power is unchecked by either. It was sarcastically referred to as the "Gilded Age".