The federal government has gotten too big for it's britches and is, at this point, very unconstitutional. At this point I'm going to vote for whichever candidate is most likely to **** off enough people to kick off the next American revolution against our very un-american money pit of a federal government.

The fact of the matter is that our country is far too large for the fed to run as a single large state. That was the whole idea of maintaining separate states in the first place, so that if you didn't like something about your state you could move to another where people thought more like you. Each state could build it's laws around what it's people and industry required to be successful. Now we have the federal government making laws to benefit company A in California, but that law interferes with company B in Texas, and company C in NY doesn't like that company A was benefited so now they want their piece.

By going to a nationalized system like we have now we have virtually assured that 50% of the population will always be pissed off about something.

I want the fed promised to me by the constitution. One that maintains a national currency system, handles foreign policy, and protects our borders... but leaves everything else to my local city/state government to determine. That trims the number of hands in the pot between me and the services which I require. It also puts less 5 year olds in the "telephone game" between me and those that make policy regarding my life and livelihood.

10th Amendment (12/15/1791):
"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."

 

Arkmage,

Just to be a devils advocate,

Confederate systems like the one you describe often times have serious buerocratic problems. Federal systems provide a certain administrative efficiency often times at the compromise of citizen happiness.

I think our current system allots enough power to either side to allow each state to be different enough (Say California is different from Montana) while still allowing us to react in times such as 9/11. I totally agree about how a state based system makes laws more accessible to citizens (and hence happier), but SOME sort of Federal system to keep things in check is definitely necessary.

On a side note, I liked Ron Paul's recent blog on the two party system.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/

4th post down

p.s.

 

Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2008, 3:59 PM

A teacher in Elmira , New York asked her 6th grade class how many of them were Obama fans.

Not really knowing what an Obama fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, All the

kids raised their hands except for Little Johnny.

The teacher asked Little Johnny why he has decided to be different
again.

Little Johnny said, 'Because I'm not an Obama fan.'

The teacher asked, 'Why aren't you an Obama fan?'

Johnny said, 'Because I'm a Republican.'

The teacher asked him why he's a Republican.

Little Johnny answered, 'Well, my Mom's a Republican and my Dad's a
Republican, so I'm a Republican.'

Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, 'If your mom was a moron and
your dad was an idiot, What would that make you?'

With a big smile, Little Johnny replied, 'That would make me an Obama
fan.'

 

Interesting and who can over turn the president's veto...hmm who could it be. I think its some type of large political gathering...I'm pretty sure historically they are composed largely of an opposite party than the elected president...just can't put my finger on it. Maybe you can help me out?

 

Is it condescending republican jackasses on miataturbo??

I know what it's not: 49 democrats in the senate.

 

insert

You do realize that you just typed what we call an oxymoron, right? But maybe I should explain it....

A states government controls the sale of alcohol and when/where it can be sold. If the religious whack-o's have say on when alcohol can be sold, then obviously some of the aforementioned whack-o's are in the governing body that says yay or nay on selling alcohol on sundays... and those people are the same people who support the GOP.

Or maybe i can put it like this...

If religious people are the ones who agree that selling alcohol on sunday and a state government controls when alcohol can be sold. Who is really in charge of when alcohol can be sold? How closely tied is the GOP to "southern, family and religious values"?


BTW, i take it your are the owner of Travis's old Miata....

 

 

BREAKING NEWS!

Sarah Palin Hates Cats.

http://www.nationalwatercooler.com/n...TES_CATS!.html

You Tube knows all! Skip to 1:09...



Other notes:
3 out of 4 Sarah Palin friends wont commit to voting for her
"She's just like the rest of us"
She's self-proclaimed "elite"


the link above is worth clicking just for the kitty pictures.

 

Well depending where you are in Alaska and what time of year ...

 

You have way tooo much time on your hands SIR!

I now vote double secret BAN of SARAH PALIN.
We can't have a cat hater in the VP office!

 

But McCain likes buttsex....she's gotta make it to office (well to first lady status)....right?

 

What's more important in this world today?
BUTTSEX or CATS RIGHTS?

 

well... both are kind of an invasive species.

 

Cats ain't going anywhere..plus im allergic...so that being said, buttsex.

 

So correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are saying is that you enjoy BUTTSEX? Whould that be the "receiver" or the "pitcher"?
Because if McCain makes it into office, then we all will be the "RECEIVER" of BUTTSEX

 

She didn't say hates cats, she said "not fond of", and the other ones chimed in that she (Palin) was "afraid of my cat". A healthy respect, if you ask me.

Smart humans know that it is wise to fear cats. They are just waiting to rip your face off if you **** them off enough. Lucky for us, that they can't usually be bothered to do so.

 

Ha, yep I own it now. There have been plenty of times in the history of Georgia Democrats have been in power and did nothing about the no alcohol on Sunday law. I guess it just must be those evil Republicans, no one else dropped the ball. But thanks for dumbing it down for me. As a minuscule financial backer of the liquor industry I am opposed to no alcohol sales on Sunday. Im not a Republican either, I'm Libertarian for future reference. Butt sex...The president should definitely get that regular whoever it is.

 

No i don't enjoy butt sex...that's McCain's wife. but I do think it'd be pretty badass to have someone who enjoys butt sex living in the White House...just imagine how much the Japanese-American relations could improve

 

Here is a quote from Cindy McCain regarding ********...

Take that drift-ers! Even the 50+ year old potential 1st lady says poor drivers make good drif-ters! Hah!

State, Local and Federal Govt need to have a careful balance of power. Just as one party running the house, senate and oval office terrifies me, any one of those govt's having too much say in my life is scary. I do believe that "for the people" is a long forgotten phrase. There are precious few people on either side of the aisle that are doing the best they possibly can, for us, without thoughts of their own status, power, future and prominance 1st.

 

oh god what a burn. Someone proclaiming they are too aggressive and throttle heavy calling themselves a bad driver and thus potentially kicking the rear out too much.

Also, um who cares if palin doesn't like cats? There have only been like 5 or 6 presidential cats, I'm posative there have been more birds and horses than cats. Last i checked everyone only cared about the presidential dog anyway. Oh yeah, and this is the Vice President. People aren't supposed to care that much about VP and last I checked, I don't.

Additionally who cares if they called themselves the "elite 6". calling themselves "super moms" or something just as gay would come off just a "supremest". Oh no, sara Palin has friends...and they named their group! Gasp...it's all too white america for me.

Democrats confuse me, Clinton thought that anyone making more than $63,000 a year was considered rich and should be more heavily taxed to pay for things for other people. Last I checked if you make 63,000 a year and are responsible for maintaining a household...well damn you don't have money to give away.