Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's where I throw my hands up--you wonder why the moderate middle--the overwhelming majority in this country--has had it.
Those of you who want to break off--you're promoting treason without even batting an eye. You don't think that's just a tad out there?
Some of you are the first to wrap yourselves in the flag and call anyone who disagrees with you a commie (or whatever the name is of the day, depending on your side) but you want to ditch the constitution and do your own thing because you don't always get things exactly the way you want them, all the time. The far left people are no better than the far right.
Well guess what--I don't get my way all the time either. That's life. Part of living together and building an economy and a country together is learning to compromise--it will not always be your way. If you feel so strongly about your "independence" then I don't think breaking off your state is going to do much good. You need to move on your own to an island somewhere where you don't have to live with anyone else, because, heaven forbid, they might want to do something differently than you.
How did we ever get to the point where every discussion has to be "my way or the highway" in this country? If you put 75-80% of the people in a room and there's a problem--I promise you--no matter how different they are--they're going to figure out a way to fix it. It's the remaining 20% that have controlled the discussion for too long in this country, and it's time for it to stop.
10-19-2011, 02:51 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
What do you think the whole purpose of the Constituition was? It did Unite independent Sovereign States around a common Law. But that idea of sovereignty has dwindled considerably and now somehow the Federal Government is Sovereign.
While the views of citizens differ widely and are correlated to political party affiliation, the actions of politicians in America today are far too uniform to worry about living under the rule of the "other" party.
If campaign-Obama had been replaced by George Bush in an Obama disguise, the result would have been basically the same. Every single thing Bush did wrong, Obama loudly criticized during the campaig--and then adopted at an accelerated rate, once elected. We voted for "hope and change" and we got "status quo."
We ALWAYS vote for hope and change, but get served the status quo. It really can't be any other way. The stakes are simply too high, and the vast majority of humans would literally kill for a mere million dollars (even if they swear on a bible they wouldn't; ask any lawyer who deals with inheritance squabbles). The powers that control our nation don't change every 4 years. At that level, money and power are God, and I doubt anything is left to chance. Certainly nothing important is going to change simply because a majority of the voting sheeple fall for the charms of the latest evangelist cult leader pop star. And since the media MAKES said celebrities, they have certainly been previously vetted to ensure their loyalty to their masters.
If Obama gets reelected in 2012, we'll have more foreign wars and diversion of tax funds from internal needs, ever bigger and more intrusive government, significantly higher taxes, government debt racing towards the bankruptcy tipping point, dollar devaluation reducing the Middle Class to poverty, continued massive unemployment, hyper-stagflation, and consolidation of wealth at the very top. If ANY of the Republicans--other than Ron Paul--get elected, we can expect exactly the same thing.
The United States is one of the most partisan countries in the developed world. There are two very distinct political ideologies that are diametrically opposed to one another. Add to that the vast distance that the federal government controls, which means people from states with entirely different cultures, histories, and demographics, have to all live under the same set of federal laws. Case in point: The distance from Los Angeles to Columbia, South Carolina is greater than the distance from London to Moscow (and the cultural difference is greater too). Yet, while the Europeans have over 50 independent nations, over here people in San Francisco have to live under the same federal laws as those in Charleston.
What does this mean for us? That we're all unhappy. We are all living under policies we don't want to live under (Health care is the best example, an odd mixture of public [democratic] and private [republican] that make us get the worst of both worlds and the benefits of neither).
Why are we so naive to think that someday things will be better? Are we that shortsighted to believe that "if we can just win this next election, everything will be ok!" Lets just be honest here, we will NEVER be happy living together. Every 4-12 years someone from the other party will gain office, and the majority in congress will shift, and they will remove old policies and implement new ones that will make half the nation ecstatic and leave the other half seethingly bitter and angry. This means no policies will ever be in place long enough to have a real effect, there will always be constant congressional gridlocks so very little will ever get done, and our taxation and economic regulatory systems will constantly be in flux.
When we will all realize that our country isn't "too big to fail" and that completely independent, smaller regional nations would be much more effective. Why can't people in Oregon smoke pot? Why can't kids in Alabama pray in schools? Why can't Arizona enforce it's own immigration laws? Why are Californian's paying for and engaged in a war both of their senators voted againts?
One day you will all wake up and realize this union needs to be divided. I just hope we can do it without any bloodshed.
One of the most partisan in the world?
I don't think so.
When the fit hits the shan this country comes together. There's no bread lines for dems or repubs, no red cross help for disaster victims based on political party.
What do you think the whole purpose of the Constituition was? It did Unite independent Sovereign States around a common Law. But that idea of sovereignty has dwindled considerably and now somehow the Federal Government is Sovereign.
BREAKING NEWS!
The Federal government since 1787 has been the SOLE sovereign government of the United States!
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Federalist No. 33, January 2, 1788, Alexander Hamilton
"But it is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land. But what inference can be drawn from this, or what would they amount to, if they were not to be supreme? It is evident they would amount to nothing. A LAW, by the very meaning of the term, includes supremacy. It is a rule which those to whom it is prescribed are bound to observe. This results from every political association. If individuals enter into a state of society, the laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their conduct. If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a government, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed."
Federalist No. 44, January 25, 1788, James Madison
"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." The indiscreet zeal of the adversaries to the Constitution has betrayed them into an attack on this part of it also, without which it would have been evidently and radically defective. To be fully sensible of this, we need only suppose for a moment that the supremacy of the State constitutions had been left complete by a saving clause in their favor. In the first place, as these constitutions invest the State legislatures with absolute sovereignty, in all cases not excepted by the existing articles of Confederation, all the authorities contained in the proposed Constitution, so far as they exceed those enumerated in the Confederation, would have been annulled, and the new Congress would have been reduced to the same impotent condition with their predecessors. In the next place, as the constitutions of some of the States do not even expressly and fully recognize the existing powers of the Confederacy, an express saving of the supremacy of the former would, in such States, have brought into question every power contained in the proposed Constitution. In the third place, as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law, of great and equal importance to the States, would interfere with some and not with other constitutions, and would consequently be valid in some of the States, at the same time that it would have no effect in others. In fine, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members."
10-19-2011, 03:35 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
BREAKING NEWS!
The Federal government since 1787 has been the SOLE sovereign government of the United States!
You seem to have missed the entire reason for the founding of America. You know, that whole "E pluribus unum" thing.
You seem to have missed the part the Federal government's role was largely only to provide for military defense and regulate trade between the states. They've stepped waayy out of their boundaries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
You need to move on your own to an island somewhere where you don't have to live with anyone else, because, heaven forbid, they might want to do something differently than you.
You do realize that is exactly how the island nation of Taiwan was founded right? They seem to be a lot happier than they were in China. So good suggestion. (BTW, I'm not a right winger)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
If campaign-Obama had been replaced by George Bush in an Obama disguise, the result would have been basically the same. Every single thing Bush did wrong, Obama loudly criticized during the campaig--and then adopted at an accelerated rate, once elected. We voted for "hope and change" and we got "status quo."
That is so false I can't tell if you're serious. Obama passed one the most sweeping health care reforms in U.S. history. He passed one the most sweeping financial regulatory reforms in U.S. history. He also has begun pulling troops out of Iraq and plans to start pulling them out of Afghanistan in 2014, something Bush would not have done. That's EXACTLY the type of change I was "hoping" for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
If you put 75-80% of the people in a room and there's a problem--I promise you--no matter how different they are--they're going to figure out a way to fix it.
We put hundreds of people in a room everyday, people that we elect ourselves, to solve our problems and they can't agree on anything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
