is this sarcasm?

_________________

Yes, the gentleman said that if states assumed power we would spiral into southern states becoming slaveholders.

You're misunderstanding this whole idea. Take the idea of universal health care. When the Federal government tries to issue national health care, we have just one program with no competition. It means we also have just a few thousand people trying to manage the lives of over 30 million people. How is that supposed to work?

However, if we let each individual state decide whether or not to offer health care, you'd potentially have 50 programs competing with one another, which drives down prices and is good for us, the consumer.

It's the best way to protect the people. Once something is done nationally, we're all stuck with it. Whereas if one state fails, it can adopt a model of another state that succeeded.

Additionally, it gives the people more control over what policies are put into place. We have far more control over our locally elected officials than the federal officials.

That's why the Constitution was drafted with limited powers awarded to the Federal government, and the rest of the powers being granted to the individual states and the people.

_________________
Wheelhouse

If one state fails it is easier to clean up then if all 50 run under the same program fail at the same time. Plus this allows states to vote on laws that are most beneficial to them. What is good for NY is not necessarily going to be best for Montana. France is not going to adopt the same laws as England. Honestly I think if we went more state based we would be a more cohesive unit on the federal level. It allows them to focus on more important things.

I thought it was, I just wanted to make sure

_________________

Bingo! That's why the Constitution was written the way it was. The problem is, our politicians are ignoring it.

_________________
Wheelhouse

Wow, not only were you wrong the first time about what I meant, you continue to come back to that example which, apparently, you were just not capable of understanding.

Regardless, link me to where I said "If states assume power southern states WOULD become slaveholders"....or just shut the fuck up about it already.

I hate you all for about a year once every four years.

The landmass of the US is nearly double that of the EU and they cannot agree on even having only one universal currency. Countries still maintain circulation of their own specific currency. Liberals like to site Europe as examples of social freedom yet each country they use as examples are roughly comparable to that of a single state. Each country has different social programs that work for that respective country. Then,god forbid, one country(insert state) fails there is a European Union(Federal government) there to help them resolve their problems.

Dude I was just busting your chops I got you last time. Your example as to how beligerant states would get with their newfound old power seemed a bit excessive and unnesessary.

You seemed pretty adamant in your example. Granted, you didn't go as far as to say that, but you were pretty adamant in your assumption that states would run amok.

_________________

again, look at michigans martial law and see what happens when states are granted freedom. the fact that the governor can see a school district struggling financially, and remove people and place his own people in those spots with NO qualifications show that some states cant handle that responsibility. wisconsin as well.

_________________

I don't see why people are arguing over states rights since, you know...it's part of the fucking constitution.

It's a really straight forward amendment too

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Mike, when do you accept responsibility as a citizen (for electing that governor)?

Also, I don't know the martial law reference you're talking to...

_________________

Newt Gingrich is the latest GOP candidate de jure, but hasn't picked up a single vote in our Sabres fan poll (voters have the option to change their selection in this poll).

I think Gingrich is a pompous ass and a bit of a snake as a person, but at least he is intelligent and not afraid to show it, which is a nice change from some of the Republican flavors of the month who seem to take a special pride in their ignorance (Perry, Bachmann, Cain).

I don't think Gingrich has the political organization, nor the money, to hang with Romney over the long hall, but maybe he can elevate the GOP dialogue to a level deserving of a presidential election.

_________________
th' only knower of th' cosmic mysteries alive at this time

Elevate the dialogue? Obama's eloquent dialogue during his campaign was nothing more than a rah-rah speech. He had nothing more to say than, "I'm not Bush" and "hope and change". Since his election he's taken every bit of the partisan stance that Repubs are accused of, starting off early with his "they can take the back of the bus" comment.

Gingrich would do more than elevate dialogue, he would tear Obama apart in a debate, and it would be ugly. Obama will not focus on issues (not that he does now) if Gingrich is the primary winner, he'll resort to dredging up past. Obama's only hope against Gingrich is a smear campaign that actually could work in the minds of independants that might only see (in their minds) a Repub dinosaur.

Don't get me wrong, I much prefer Mitch Daniels if he ran, and future hopefuls like Paul Ryan or Cantor, but Gingrich would do much more than "elevate the dialogue", something that Obama never did (and never really had to).

I know this won't happen but I would be in heaven if Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin were the front runners. I would have the beer and popcorn ready for that debate!!! Like McCain's daughter Meghan said yesterday when asked what Bachmann has that Palin doesn't:

_________________

If you've been a Sabres fan since 1980, then surely you've been around long enough to realize that EVERY presidential candidate's campaign is mostly "rah-rah" speeches. However, in the last presidential election Obama offered far more in the way of substance than did his opponent.

Also, Obama just made the "back of the bus" comment less than two months ago, so if that is when he started getting partisan he waited far too long, in my opinion. The comment referred to the GOP driving the economy into the ground and now they are calling shotgun on economic reforms. Pretty mild stuff.

I would throw the Republican congress off the bus altogether.

As to the president running a smear campaign against Gingrich, keep in mind that Newt is the same man who started the practice of giving speeches in the well of an empty House of Representatives for the benefit of C-Span cameras that never showed it was empty, calling Democrats cowards and traitors and daring them to stand up and object if they disagreed, which of course no one did since he was speaking to empty seats.

Cheap, underhanded tactics and smear campaigns involving a candidate's personal life are fair game in a presidential campaign. You know how I know this?

The Republicans have demonstrated it many, many times.

_________________
th' only knower of th' cosmic mysteries alive at this time

Yes I know a lot of campaining is "rah-rah". Perhaps I'm more keen to it now or simply because the anti-Bush wave made it so simple for Obama, but his campaign was so blatently hollow to me it seemed worth noting.

His "back of the bus" comment I refer to was actually within weeks of his election, maybe days. I wasn't aware that he went back to it recently. Again, I'm not trying to defend or prop up Gingrich. I'm just saying that to suggest he's the only one that could possibly "elevate the dialogue", as if everyone else's (dems) is already at a higher standard, "deserving of a presidential election" is unfortunately not true. For the most part, Repub or Dem alike are simply jargon and rhetoric machines that are ultimately in politics for their own gain.

For people (many that post on this site obviously) to continue to raise one party up over another on the moral totem pole just shows, idk, something closer to blind allegiance than a critical assesment. I lean Repub because I'm a fiscal conservative and moderate on social issues. That doesn't in any way make me think that Repubs are somehow morally better than Dems though. Each party pulls the same shit on each other depending on the scenario, out of the same playbook. We as voters don't deserve any better though, as long as we buy into the "my party is good and the other is evil" mentality. I'd rather see 100 independants that had to explain their positions on every issue, and then see how the votes shake out, as opposed to people that just cling to a party line vote on presupposed assumptions. Indys can't succeed though without campaign finance reform, or a major shift in voter attitudes. If only we could start over with a clean slate...

As each of the GOP candidates takes a turn as flavor of the month, I look forward to John Huntsman getting his shot (he's the one in the upper right - from his early years in a rock & roll band).




Could a Late Jon Huntsman Surge Spell the End of Mitt Romney?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stewart-j ... 24616.html

_________________
th' only knower of th' cosmic mysteries alive at this time