[+Donny]

I would like to see our government eventually adopt some variant of Socialism.

Yeah, but you're a nutjob.

[JerryLove]

I would like to see our government eventually adopt some variant of Socialism.

Every government is at least somewhat socialist.

["BrooksB"]

I agree Jerry that fed law should supercede state law (as the constitution has it), but fed law should also be true to its own constitutional bearings (like the part about giving all rights to state governments which were not expressed directly in the constitution). That is where I disagree about certain policies that would homogenize America. I like the idea that there are 50 different entities, mainly because of my staunch support of local pride/color. I think that the more the fed controls, the more our country will become dull. If we let states decide more important issues then it might actually make a difference whether or not you were in New York as compared to Texas. Personally, I think it's a good thing to have diversity. It's kind of like a balance of power thing.

[jc-16]

Fro me it depends what the law is.

[Wheatmeister]

Certain things are better left to the federal government to deal with...A good rule of thumb: If it crosses state lines, let the feds deal with it. Roads, pollution, crimes that cross state lines...all good things for Uncle Sam to deal with. More personal issues: marriage(including gay civil unions), divorce law, euthanasia, medical marijuana, right-to-die, etc...Those are issues where I think states should take the lead.

[Danny]

I would say that the federal government should have control over all those issues as well, if the federal government wasn't so stupid about them (as the recent Shiavo incident has demonstrated). But that's just based solely on the concept that a centralized government is a whole lot simpler than fifty states with fifty individual law books. Maybe it is better that way, despite the complication, though.

[JerryLove]

More personal issues: marriage(including gay civil unions), divorce law, euthanasia, medical marijuana, right-to-die, etc...Those are issues where I think states should take the lead.

Married people don't cross state lines?

While I agree that most of these *are* states rights... I'm not sure that the seperation is appropriate in the modern world. I think national standards of what constitutes "murder", driving laws, gun laws, etc would be more useful.

[JerryLove]

I would say that the federal government should have control over all those issues as well, if the federal government wasn't so stupid about them (as the recent Shiavo incident has demonstrated).

Not as stupid as the people. You realize there are dozens to hundreds of identical cases that no one is paying any attention to?

[cuziamthecaptai]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Corrilarily, I'd like to see the state-governments reduced to local-issues and see a single country rather than a federation of 50 member-states.

I disagree, in fact, I think the states should focus much more than local issues. The differecnes between the red states and blue states are important, and I wouldn't want to have to bargin and reason with Texas nor should they with california.

I don't think Texas values education, enviornment, drug laws, and rational punishment the way California does, and I don't think that California should make smoking pot a crime because Texas and the south has a problem with it.

With Texas and California different, people have the opprotunity to move within a country to match a particular culture. Hey, if I don't like abortions but I'm all for killing convicted killers, I can move to 'bama. If I like to smoke weed and have stem cell research, I can move to cali.

And then, we can see which system is better. Have a little compititon. Allow one part of the nation to ban stem cells and allow another part to fully fund it-- see which states are better off in a few years. If Mississippi becomes the laughing stock of the world for having state-imposed creation classes, and all the biology professors leave in protest, so be it. The professors can come to New Jersey.

Long story short, It was the south east and the mid west that voted for Bush. And I don't want to be a part of a nation that would elect him. I certainly don't want such systems as education and the enviornment swayed by the same people that would elect Bush. In fact, I want as little to do with the south east as possible.

If I had it my way, the function of the federal government would be to protect our boarders from foreign attackers, enact treaties with other countries, keep a stable currency, and that's a bout it.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

no more dodging the filters. Period.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

no more dodging the filters. Period.

For the record: It was not me that time.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by Danny

For the record: It was not me that time.

It was me. I was scathingly attacking cuziamthecaptia for being an ignorant prick. It's okay that I was censored, though, because dumb "craps" from California can go on breathing their smog so long as we can enjoy the good life down here in the south. Kiss my ass, you scourge of the earth (referring directly and unabashedly to cuziamthecaptai)

[JerryLove]

I disagree, in fact, I think the states should focus much more than local issues. The differecnes between the red states and blue states are important, and I wouldn't want to have to bargin and reason with Texas nor should they with california.

So you assert, in essence, that one or the other has a poor position in regards to a global subject (let's say "education", but feel free to substitute whatever you actually feel is a good example), so rather than "have to bargin and reason" with representatives from Texas, you would condem the population of the state to what you believe to be an intolerable education system.

That seems like a crappy position to me.

I don't think Texas values education, enviornment, drug laws, and rational punishment the way California does, and I don't think that California should make smoking pot a crime because Texas and the south has a problem with it.

And I think that education and drug laws should be consistant. That what is correct for the government to do in regards to those issue does not change when you change location.

Envyronment is a bit different, as the actual issues change related to local (draining water from the colorado river does not have the same impact as draining from the everglades.)

With Texas and California different, people have the opprotunity to move within a country to match a particular culture. Hey, if I don't like abortions but I'm all for killing convicted killers, I can move to 'bama. If I like to smoke weed and have stem cell research, I can move to cali.

It's either right or wrong for the government to control [abortion / marijuanna / etc.] The place of government should not change based on which piece of ground you are standing on.

Further, you niglect those without such choices... whether it's the 16-year-old boy with a joint, or the 16-year-old girl with an unwanted pregnancy.

And then, we can see which system is better. Have a little compititon. Allow one part of the nation to ban stem cells and allow another part to fully fund it-- see which states are better off in a few years. If Mississippi becomes the laughing stock of the world for having state-imposed creation classes, and all the biology professors leave in protest, so be it. The professors can come to New Jersey.

Because the plight of our brothers is not our concern? Because one part of the country does not effect others?

Heck, why limit it to states. If your enighborhood thinks we should burn the athiests... let's just let them compete with other neighborhoods. Hope you can move fast.

Long story short, It was the south east and the mid west that voted for Bush. And I don't want to be a part of a nation that would elect him. I certainly don't want such systems as education and the enviornment swayed by the same people that would elect Bush. In fact, I want as little to do with the south east as possible.

Sounds like an appeal to consequence. As I recall, CA voted in Schwartzenegger.

If I had it my way, the function of the federal government would be to protect our boarders from foreign attackers, enact treaties with other countries, keep a stable currency, and that's a bout it.

Why bother? Can't CA fund an army? Can't it defend its borders? Can't it make a stable economy without worrying what the rest of the country might do to your currency?

[cuziamthecaptai]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So you assert, in essence, that one or the other has a poor position in regards to a global subject (let's say "education", but feel free to substitute whatever you actually feel is a good example), so rather than "have to bargin and reason" with representatives from Texas, you would condem the population of the state to what you believe to be an intolerable education system.

Isn't this what we do with Mexico? Canada? and now we see what difference an education makes. Let's use the scientific method-- see which education model is better by their results. But we can't all see which is better if it's all the same.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That seems like a crappy position to me.

And I think that education and drug laws should be consistant. That what is correct for the government to do in regards to those issue does not change when you change location.

Doesn't it? If the culture in Alaska is such that generally 6 years of education is enough (as opposed to 8 years in, say, New York), shouldn't Alaska be able to have just 6 years?
Of course, I get what you're saying-- that people are generally the same, education and drug effects will be the same, but what we see is such a big divide in people's attitude and a simple unwillingness to compromise. Why should I have to convince people in the south and midwest that their bible makes no claims about drugs just so I can smoke pot in California?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Envyronment is a bit different, as the actual issues change related to local (draining water from the colorado river does not have the same impact as draining from the everglades.)

It's either right or wrong for the government to control [abortion / marijuanna / etc.] The place of government should not change based on which piece of ground you are standing on.

Try telling that to the red states. It's almost impossible. Instead, we have red-staters re-electing bush solely on his feelings about abortion. I don't want these people making my policy on abortion/drugs/enviornment any more than I want the people in mexico making these desicions.

I feel much more in line with Canada on these issues, and I feel that the red-states are going to be less and less likely to view issues rationally or compromise.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Further, you niglect those without such choices... whether it's the 16-year-old boy with a joint, or the 16-year-old girl with an unwanted pregnancy.

Because the plight of our brothers is not our concern? Because one part of the country does not effect others?

What about the plight of the Mexicans? Do young Mexicans have an ability to go into the states? Do we not affect the Mexicans, and vice versa?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Heck, why limit it to states. If your enighborhood thinks we should burn the athiests... let's just let them compete with other neighborhoods. Hope you can move fast.

Since education and drug standards are the same for everyone, why not merge all the nations of America into one? Hope you're ready to convince the Peruvians that education is important and are ready to pay for it. You do know that most of the blue states pay more to the federal govt than they recieve, and the red states are the deadbeats?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Sounds like an appeal to consequence. As I recall, CA voted in Schwartzenegger.

Indeed it is an appeal to consequence. Basically what we are saying to the south is: "it's okay to trash your enviornment and have a crappy educatino system, we'll pay for it with our tax dollars." The south should rise or fall based upon its merits, not based on the support of the other states.

Actually, I wouldn't mind the govenator (if he changed a few important details) -- as an economically conservative socially liberal leader appeals to me. But again-- even the republicans in Cali are very socially liberal. The dems in 'bama are more republican than many republicans in Mass.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Why bother? Can't CA fund an army? Can't it defend its borders? Can't it make a stable economy without worrying what the rest of the country might do to your currency?

Well, first, the collective army/currency is at least supported by the good-ol constitution (you won't find any mention of drugs/education, and if it is it is relegated to the states).

But of course, there is a list of things we feel the states should be in charge of, and other things we feel that the states-- if they pooled their money-- would better function. I feel that military should be pooled as we are similar enough that mutual protection makes sense. Protecting the california boarders from invaders is the same as protecting the florida coastline. But since the standards of education and drugs and religion are so different based upon reigion, why force one area to conform to the others? Actually, as you mention it, perhaps curracy shoudl be varied.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

It was me. I was scathingly attacking cuziamthecaptia for being an ignorant prick.

I love how the semantics can be the same, as long as you use the 'right' words. So you could go to prickthesouth.com only it's not "prick" but a harsher word. And not 5 letters but 4.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

It's okay that I was censored, though, because dumb "craps" from California can go on breathing their smog so long as we can enjoy the good life down here in the south.

Yeah, that the people in California are paying for
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...ates_feed.html
Yeah, you're getting the good end of the deal. All the innovation and progress and education occurs in the blue states and the blue state economy pays for it. Where are the educational greats? Blue states. Where does all the culture and populat entertainment come from? Blue states. Heck, I'd prefer to have some smog if it means being next store to Caltech, UCLA, Berkely, and all the television and movies you watch.

Originally Posted by BrooksB

Kiss my ass, you scourge of the earth (referring directly and unabashedly to cuziamthecaptai)

Atta boy. Have some feeling into it. Let's just divide up the blue and the red. Let's see how well they do indepdently, so we see once and for all which culture is better. why have a culture war when we can have a culture race? with all apologies to Jerry, I feel florida and the south as a whole as little better than mexico (with all apologies to Mexico). Heh heh -- I kid (and fear being censored) but really-- if you think the south is so great, I don't think the north will fight too hard to keep you guys in the country again.