If you look at the facts, you can see many similarities between Republicans and Democrats. One is they both get funding from Goldman Sachs. Why would the same people fund both parties? Both parties agree with The Federal Reserve printing money, going into more debt, taxing, and getting involved in more wars. This is not what the founders intended. George Washington even said in his farewell address, be careful of political parties. They might argue over healthcare, birth control, and gay marriage but these are just distractions from the real issues, these issues need to be left to the state
sort by best latest
I think you are speaking of English politics, not American. If what you said were actually true, you would have two parties marching in lockstep to their leader's command;not just one in the Senate. Even John Boehner isn't doing well in the House.
I agree. They may vote differently, but it is usually for some legislation that is not helpful, influenced by their lobbyist, or issues that should be left up to the state. The tenth amendment is very clear on this.
It should be dealt with by individual states not the federal government
I really think that a 'patchwork' approach to most of these questions will be much less effective than an approach at the Federal level. YMMV.
Decisions like these have to be left up to the states. There is no one answer. You let different states try different things but not federally because that effects every state
"Leaving it up to the states" is the conservative answer to all of societies problems, except intrastate commerce and national defense, it seems. The problem with that, of course, is that idea went out with the Continental Congress and the AoC.
There certainly *can* be "one answer." In some cases it may make sense for states to act as a laboratory to find the best approach (should there turn out to be a 'best approach.') In others effective action must be unitary to work.
What was great about our country was that you didn't need just one answer you had the freedom to choose. Things like gay marriage and abortion should be left up to the state so it is reflected off that states values. Not some federal thugs values.
Now there's an even-handed assessment! What about *state* thugs? It seems most unlikely that all virtue will be reliably concentrated at the state level--especially given the history on race and civil rights.
It easier to get things changed at the local level then at the federal level. People have more control over their state. Plus it gives more choices then just the federally mandated one.
So, in your view SB, Civil Rights should be a state decision, not a federal one. It would be OK for one state to allow slavery and another not, which is what the Civil War was partly fought over. It is OK to allow one state to segregate its school
No slavery wouldn't be acceptable. You can't harm anyone, and if you do that you get charged with a crime. But with what you want, since gambling is illegal in most places shouldn't it be illegal for Las Vegas to have it.
Thats where the Supreme Court is involved,to determine if the Feds have overstepped its bounds.But, I find it wrong for one state to so underfund its schools in poor districts that it turns out idiots, while another doesn't, it requires fed minimums.
Well schools would have better education if the federal government would get out of the way and promoted competition in schools. Since the federal government runs schools one way how do you know that there isn't a better way?
Good choice for your argument, SB--"No Child Left Behind" has had disastrous effects, and will continue to do so. But there is still a good deal of choice at lower levels, and increasingly so under the Obama administration. GA just opted out of NCL
I don't like NCLB either, but the idea is right, it sets minimum standards, terrible implementation and I don't blame GA. You spoke out of both sides, SB. On 1 hand, feds stay out, on other feds, please promote compitition.
Feds may stay out, but they still create the legislation.
However--getting back to 'big-picture' issues--some things can't be adequately dealt with locally/regionally. Climate change is a great example. States can play a constructive role, but we need China on board, not just the USA--or California.
So the federal government knows how deal with climate control? Is that what they went to school for?
The Feds have the most appropriate jurisdiction. They also have the prestigious National Academy of Sciences as official science advisor, not to mention numerous agencies with staff who did "go to school for that."
Well then talk to Al Gore who has made tons of money of the global warming scam.
Al Gore really has nothing to do with what we're discussing, does he? But, FYI, his money did not come from anything to do with GW. (Mostly computer-related business dealings.) And trust me--GW ain't a scam, no matter what Rush tells you.
I Don't listen to Rush. But just be careful of climate control becoming an excuse for a one world dictatorship. Though we can't seem to agree on all the issues we discussed so far, I can say government can't handle issues without creating new ones.
A binding climate change treaty--I don't say climate "control," as we don't 'control' it, we only know how to screw it up so far--shouldn't hurt national sovereignty any more than any existing treaty. Eg., the Montreal Protocol (ozone layer.)
Typo, I was at work and typing fast.
Well just vote for Obama and he'll make sure the Federal Government handles all the important issues.
Sadly, I feel I don't have a choice but to do so. I'd like it much better if there were competing policies to address climate change (etc.), rather than competing 'narratives' about whether the problem even exists.
I don't follow your reasoning on Doc's climate issue, SB. Climate change is a global issue, not a state one; how would you expect 50 separate solutions, or non-solutions, to have any impact at all, given the disaster that may befall the human race
I really don't have an opinion, I see it get warmer than usual sometimes but it doesn't concern me. I do think government takes advantage of the situation. I think government is exaggerating, to put fear into your mind.
It's mostly not government, which has often been resistant or paid lip service; it's mostly NGOs, climate scientists of all sorts, and concerned individuals (like me.) Warming so far's small, but has cost $ billions. It'll get way worse.
Do you have any real statistics to back up your assertion about how rich politicians become if they start out poor? I don't like the calibre of politicians we have either, so I keep trying to vote for better ones.
I admit painting with a broad stroke brush but my assertion is not that poor politicians become rich but rather political office has become a career, a primary means of personal enrichment, not service to our country and often by unethical means.
As a career, I don't know if that is a bad thing, unless it is in the same office, because the ability to do what politicians must do is not easy. I do support term limits of some sort to get at what bothers you because you make a good point.
When political office becomes a career path, then the motivation to represent the constituency conflicts with the motivation to pander. Public service becomes self service. Statesmanship has become a derogatory term for a politician who compromises.
You really don't have much choice between politicians. They may argue, but that is a front. As soon as someone starts threatening their shrinking pie, without fail, they all come together.
A look back to 1812 and the demise of the Federalist Party for a glimpse at what could happen and why might be helpful. Bassically, as you point out, they became the party of arrogant elitists and the wealthy along with being against the war of 1812
Simply put and I completely agree
I have thought about that a lot and have come to the conclusion that both are best for America, in the long run. Without the electoral college, then 1/4 of the states shouldn't bother voting; one city has more votes than all of them combined.
Political parties are tricky.It is so hard for a 3rd party to run for president because they are blocked out by the rep and dem. You need a lot of money to run 3rd party. We need competition in political parties, not just left and right.
An all or nothing election almost forces a two party system. Where someone needs at least 1 vote over 50%, there's not much room for multiple opponents.
I agree that the major parties show no difference. I disagree that we still have the most freedoms in the world. They are disappearing, with bills such as NDAA and Obama assassinating Americans, or just the Patriot Act.
I stand strong in my beliefs and although I have investigated, I have found no one country in the world as we now know it, that is safer and has the best future, than the United States.
For now that is whats great about America. Even though your freedom is dwindling, you still have the ability to believe what you want. You can keep your eyes closed, for now.
When I close my eyes, it is to sleep at night and if I never awaken, then it is God's will and I'm quite content that He makes the best judgments for us all.
OK. Name me one other country that tags each child born with an identification number or places a commodity number on each live birth certificate that can be checked on the stock exchange right now. Name me one country. You live in the matrix.
Some live in a doomsday scenario right now...but all were given life, a brain and intellect and the ability to make positive changes. So do it!
2 answers hidden due to negative feedback. Show
2 answers hidden due to negative feedback. Hide