Page 11 of 13
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 1:17 am
by Camaro
Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Dec 9 2011, 09:39 AM) I'm starting to think that ultimately Camaro just doesn't like the USA, and would prefer to see ~50 individual countries in it's place.
germloucks wrote:QUOTE (germloucks @ Dec 9 2011, 12:29 PM) I just think he wants the fed to manage a few small things and let the states do everything else. I disagree wholeheartedly, although i think the government needs to get new priorities.
I love the US of A. I just believe in government for the people, by the people. The best way to do so is in their state and local governments where they have greater representation. Otherwise you get laws that just piss off large segments of the nation... or worse, infringe upon their rights.
The Feds should do 4 things:
1) Provide a National Defense - not maintain an offensive force to kick the asses of those we choose... but to kick the asses of those who attack our soil, as well as secure our borders (not anti-immigration, but a country really should have control of its borders).
2) Manage relations with foreign governments (doesn't make sense for 50 states to have foreign relations).
3) STANDARDIZE trade between the states... you know, to regulate as defined as TO MAKE REGULAR. States themselves can ban things or force people to buy stuff, but not the Feds. This is my interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
4) Maintain the national currency.... which currently is the job of a quasi-public entity that has done an excellent job of devaluing our currency.
... I think that is about it... Ill amend this list if I can come up with something more.
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 1:22 am
by Sundance_
Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Dec 9 2011, 07:17 PM) I love the US of A. I just believe in government for the people, by the people. The best way to do so is in their state and local governments where they have greater representation. Otherwise you get laws that just piss off large segments of the nation... or worse, infringe upon their rights.
The Feds should do 4 things:
1) Provide a National Defense - not maintain an offensive force to kick the asses of those we choose... but to kick the asses of those who attack our soil, as well as secure our borders (not anti-immigration, but a country really should have control of its borders).
2) Manage relations with foreign governments (doesn't make sense for 50 states to have foreign relations).
3) STANDARDIZE trade between the states... you know, to regulate as defined as TO MAKE REGULAR. States themselves can ban things or force people to buy stuff, but not the Feds. This is my interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
4) Maintain the national currency.... which currently is the job of a quasi-public entity that has done an excellent job of devaluing our currency.
... I think that is about it... Ill amend this list if I can come up with something more.
Well said!
Strongly agree with underlined and bolded. Wish it was more true than it is right now. Politicians are taking it upon themselves to legislate for what THEY think is right, rather than what the people want.
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:19 am
by germloucks
now to steer the debate back to how much of a nutjob Gingrich is.
QUOTE I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age, they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.[/quote]
LOLOL
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 4:36 am
by Camaro
germloucks wrote:QUOTE (germloucks @ Dec 9 2011, 05:19 PM) now to steer the debate back to how much of a nutjob Gingrich is.
LOLOL
OH GOD WERE GONNA BE IN A SOMEHOW SECULAR WHILE ALSO A RADICAL ISLAMIST NATION!?
OH THE HUMANITY!
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:32 am
by germloucks
it makes me sick what these politicians do/say to stir up the base. dem/republicans included. What a ridiculous fantasy that america will be a state dominated by radical islam.
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:58 am
by raumvogel
germloucks wrote:QUOTE (germloucks @ Dec 10 2011, 03:32 AM) it makes me sick what these politicians do/say to stir up the base. dem/republicans included. What a ridiculous fantasy that america will be a state dominated by radical islam.
But they can no longer scare us with "commie pinko ruskies" anymore!
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:42 am
by HSharp
I would say the problem with USA now is that it isn't a secular country even though that was one of the principles that founded it. Scaremongering and paranoia brought Jesus back to the USA.
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:06 am
by germloucks
republicans have to get their base scared @#(!less of something, seems like.
And though i wish the USA was founded on purely secular principles, i think thats a bit of a stretch. I agree the founders didnt want religion determining what the government did. (which isnt happening)
It would be interesting to see a lawsuit brought against DOMA on those grounds, that enforcing man-woman marriage is a religious principle and therefore against sep church and state etc.
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 1:40 pm
by Adept
Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Dec 10 2011, 03:17 AM) <definition of the Camaro Federation>
Ok, more like 50 nations in a loose economical union and a defense pact.
On a theoretical level I can appreciate that, and your ides about sound money and a sane military posture are easy to agree with. I just think that the laissez-faire style economical competition between the 50 states would lead to virtually no environmental protection and very crappy right for workers. Basically there would be a huge competition for businesses and mobile capital, and the "winners" would be those states willing to degrade standards to a 3rd world level.
Still, at least I agree on some of it
Awesome Gingrich quote there Germ. That's just... wow.
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:30 pm
by raumvogel
Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Dec 10 2011, 08:40 AM) Ok, more like 50 nations in a loose economical union and a defense pact.
On a theoretical level I can appreciate that, and your ides about sound money and a sane military posture are easy to agree with. I just think that the laissez-faire style economical competition between the 50 states would lead to virtually no environmental protection and very crappy right for workers. Basically there would be a huge competition for businesses and mobile capital, and the "winners" would be those states willing to degrade standards to a 3rd world level.
Still, at least I agree on some of it
Awesome Gingrich quote there Germ. That's just... wow.
Michigan lost tons of auto jobs to other states. Some areas of it are currently teetering on 3rd world standards of living.