justincredible;843542 wrote:Rs and Ds both suck, but wishing either group dead is asinine.

Absolutely. With both dead we'd still have gridlock...and no budget

jhay78;843515 wrote:When you post stuff like that, you discredit anything rational you may have already stated, and have officially earned the right to not be taken seriously ever again.

I have really strong feelings about what Democrats are doing and have done to this country. I have an intense dislike for the way they go about their business of promising utopia (entitlements), promoting class warfare, and taxing and spending us all into oblivion while ignoring the constitution. But I have never, nor will I ever, wish any of them dead.

Chill out. I was just joking. But I was serious about not liking Republicans. They have never done me any favors.

FairwoodKing;843620 wrote:Chill out. I was just joking. But I was serious about not liking Republicans. They have never done me any favors.

Psshaw...I wish that's all I could say about Democrats, but instead they just take my money and give it to others. I don't ask for much, just stop taking my money to handout.

FairwoodKing;843620 wrote:Chill out. I was just joking. But I was serious about not liking Republicans. They have never done me any favors.

Yeah right. Liberals and Democrats are always saying "I was Joking" when they say something like that but always want to hold "other" people to a different standard for what they say.
Your not fooling anyone.

gut;843500 wrote:I didn't say that at all. Congrats on proving the point of how people suspend rational thought and common sense when it comes to govt and laws. Two words: efficiency & effectiveness. There are things the feds are going to be better at managing, and things that the local govt is better at. There is too much overlap and inefficiency.

Thank you for clarifying. I agree with the bold 100%. Efficiency and effectiveness however do not trump the constitution. The framers gave us a blank sheet to add any new power the federal government would be better at managing than the states and people. It requires jumping through a few more political hoops to ensure its efficient, effective, and common sense. A check against central power.

gut;843500 wrote:Govt is govt and law is law, there's very little personal impact between what falls under state and federal.

I disagree. California, Texas, New York, and Florida, can pass laws that have no impact on me if I am not a citizen of their state. Much less travel to or do business in their states. Federal law will impact me no matter what state I am a citizen of.

gut;843500 wrote:The libertarian and construction points are fun in theory, but a practical common sense approach works better in the real world.

The constitution laid out the first list of practical common sense powers of the federal government. They left a blank sheet to write in any new federal power when state governments can't be as efficient and effective. Or just don't want the responsibility. I know its a hard pill to swallow for the circus clowns in Washington. Piss on consulting the pesky states. A simple majority of congress is all they need now a days. You can see where that has gotten us today.

gut;843500 wrote:I mean, maybe every state should have it's own central bank and print its own money - that is both idiotic and impractical.

Have you have read the constitution lately? It recognized the idiocy and impracticability of states being able to print their own money and the chaos it would bring. It expressly forbids them to "coin money". And specifically enumerates that power to the federal government. Why would you use this as an argument against an "original intent" or "strict constructionist" interpretation of the constitution? Its constitutional law, not theory.

Article I Section 8 the federal congress shall have the power to:
coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

Article I section 10:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money

majorspark;844016 wrote: Have you have read the constitution lately? It recognized the idiocy and impracticability of states being able to print their own money and the chaos it would bring. It expressly forbids them to "coin money". And specifically enumerates that power to the federal government. Why would you use this as an argument against an "original intent" or "strict constructionist" interpretation of the constitution? Its constitutional law, not theory.

Because it was a simple illustrative example. You could use the Fed is you want. We can find plenty of examples not expressly granted by the constitution, but it was not intended to be a static document. And constructionist views often ignore reality and common sense - a very different world than even 50 years ago.

And if you can agree there are some things that are done better at the federal level than state level, why should laws be any different? Some laws are fine locally while others need to be consistent across state lines. Gay marriage is a great example, because you're dealing with federal tax benefits among other things. It makes no sense to me how it could be recognized in some states, and recognized federally, and not in other states. You take drug laws just as another example, and it isn't going to work in OH if it's legal in MI and IN. Health and safety laws are another excellent example - I shouldn't have to guess or research what the local laws are, the fed should guarantee a minimum acceptable standard. Speed limits are a great counterexample - easily observed and not rendered ineffective by the speed limit on another highway in IN.

gut;842522 wrote:Interstate commerce applies to transactions moving ACROSS state lines.

It should only apply to those transactions. But not according to the SCOTUS. See Wickard v. Filburn. An atrocious seizure of federal power via a warped interpretation of the commerce clause. I have posted on this before. Case in point on how the feds engage in a game of constitutional twister to usurp power not granted them. Seriously are you on board with this?

The federal government, with the federal judiciary's stamp of approval, has twisted and stretched the commerce clause into for all intents and purposes into an unlimited federal power. A good example of how unlimited this power is would be the Wickard v. Filburn decision.

The federal government placed limits on wheat production in order to drive up wheat prices during the depression era. Roscoe Filburn grew more wheat than the feds permitted. But get this the wheat he was growing in excess of federal limits was for his own consumption. He did not place it on the market. He used the excess to sustain his family and feed his livestock. Filburn was ordered by the Federal government to destroy his excess wheat and pay a fine. Destroy the wheat when so many were going hungry in the world? That makes no sense. At the least order him to give it away to those in need.

The SCOTUS ruled because Filburn's excess wheat production reduced the amount of wheat he would consume on the open market, and wheat was a national commodity, therefore federal government had the power under the commerce clause to order him to cease the production of wheat for personal consumption.

The SCOTUS reasoned that Filburn's growing of wheat for personal consumption alone would not have a major impact nationally, but if countless farmers followed in the footsteps of Filburn the effect would be significant. Thus the federal congress possesses the power to regulate intrastate and non-commercial private activity, if such activity were viewed by congress to have a significant effect on interstate commerce. No matter how it effects the individual.

I have a garden. So if I plant corn, tomatoes, beans, etc. And countless others are doing the same thing. And my garden and others reduced the amount of produce on the open market. The feds can fine me and order me to destroy my produce? This is nothing short of tyranny. I don't use that word lightly. Lets call a spade a spade.

With this logic and jurisprudence the federal government could regulate riding a bicycle. If I choose to ride my bicycle to work instead of driving I am reducing the amount of gasoline I consume. Gasoline is a national commodity. My choosing to ride a bicycle to work reduces the amount of gasoline I consume on the open market. Therefore the federal government has the power and authority to fine me and order me to destroy my bicycle.

majorspark;844071 wrote:With this logic and jurisprudence the federal government could regulate riding a bicycle. If I choose to ride my bicycle to work instead of driving I am reducing the amount of gasoline I consume. Gasoline is a national commodity. My choosing to ride a bicycle to work reduces the amount of gasoline I consume on the open market. Therefore the federal government has the power and authority to fine me and order me to destroy my bicycle.

But there is actually plenty of logic and justification in that decision. Granted, it's a fairly extreme example, but the reasoning is pretty sound. Like it or not, there IS an element of central planning and we do have a social contract both with our state and America in general. Everyone growing corn and no one growing wheat IS a problem, on multiple levels. You take it a step further, there are levers the govt tweaks to help fledgling industries...and this can be done both with laws and taxes, or both. Like it or not, it's both ineffective and on a national level, inefficient, for each state to try to manage it's crops in a way to be self-sufficient. OH needing to subsidize more corn growth while IN is trying to incentivize less corn growth is simply moronic, and this is the problem with technology mitigating the efficiency and effectiveness of state & local laws. If you want to really cut to the chase, there are things that make sense to regulate/manage only at the federal level or not at all.

Many of your arguments make far more sense, 100 years ago. But the idea of a state being self-sufficient and isolate and free of impact from what other states are doing is eroded everyday by advances in technology, transportation, etc...And so a more practical approach recognizes competing and conflicting state laws creates a lot of dead weight economic loss. And it's not as if those states don't have representation in the federal govt. If I have a local liquor store, I deal with my local and state laws. But if I take a few internet orders to ship across state lines, I'm now subject to interstate commerce laws, which while creating dead weight loss is far better than having to deal with laws of 50 different states.

Like it or not, we are an increasingly mobile society which tilts things more and more toward federal govt. Take it further with bullet trains (or all the way with teleporters, hahaha) and those state lines vanish more and more to the point of virtually complete irrelevance. Or maybe you could argue the opposite. At the end of the day, it all strikes me as a comical waste of time and resources because no one really chooses to live where they do based on whether the state allows gay marriage or abortion - you can live in your little bublble and be completely unaffected by this. I don't see the point in why people need to dictate how others live when it has absolutely no material or economic impact on them (a moving "line" when you introduce more and more socialism/social contracts), and those are issues it makes sense to decide on a national level rather than waste the time and resources battling it out 50 times in every state (and more, because some of these issues simply never die because people love to but their noses in shit that doesn't affect them again and again). Subjective morality is simply not a good basis for law.

gut;844066 wrote:We can find plenty of examples not expressly granted by the constitution, but it was not intended to be a static document. And constructionist views often ignore reality and common sense - a very different world than even 50 years ago.

You are conveniently ignoring my points as to how a constructionist view does not ignore common sense and the ever changing world. Its not a static document. The framers gave us a blank slate to adapt to an ever changing world, realistically and with common sense. You can write in any federal power you wish. I know its more difficult (for good reason). But the common sense ones would have been no brainers. It amazes me that our foundational governing document reluctantly is added to. But the sky is the limit for the 10's of thousands of federal laws and regulations one has to weed through. It makes the intolerable acts look like a kindergartners coloring book.

You talk about the burden of navigation differing state law. Its a walk in the park compared to navigating through the swamp of federal law and regulation. Ask any business man. The parasite economy is hosting on Washington. That is where it is at. So much good potentially productive talent wasted massaging the balls of federal politicians.

You and I agree that the federal government is spiraling into inevitable default unless radical changes are made. Say the federal government held a constructionist view of the constitution. Would we be in the financial straits we are in today?

FairwoodKing;843387 wrote:Yes, I follow this guy. And I wouldn't cry any tears if all Repubs were dead.

This is a perfect example of tolerance of ideas in practice by a Democrat.

gut;843540 wrote:I agree with you, but after the last 10 years I've had to throw the Republican party into that mix, too.

Republicans get the blame to the extent that they have acted like Democrats.

Bachmann won the straw vote in Iowa today. The gay and gay-friendly vote is at least ten percent of the voting public. I think she will have a hard time beating Obama without any gay support.

FairwoodKing;861567 wrote:Bachmann won the straw vote in Iowa today. The gay and gay-friendly vote is at least ten percent of the voting public. I think she will have a hard time beating Obama without any gay support.

Maybe, but if people understood really understood her and her husband's ministry/business instead of blanketly labeling them "anti-gay", she might have more gay support.

Besides, she has a long way to go before she gets the nomination. I'm still guessing it will come down to either Romney or Perry.

FairwoodKing;861567 wrote:Bachmann won the straw vote in Iowa today. The gay and gay-friendly vote is at least ten percent of the voting public. I think she will have a hard time beating Obama without any gay support.

I dont believe it is 10% of the VOTING pubic. Maybe overall population but not voting public.

jmog;861788 wrote:I dont believe it is 10% of the VOTING pubic. Maybe overall population but not voting public.

Gays and lesbians probably don't constitute ten percent of the population, but with our friends we easily have at least ten percent of the votes. Let's put it this way, we can't put anyone in office but we can keep someone out.

jhay78;861731 wrote:Maybe, but if people understood really understood her and her husband's ministry/business instead of blanketly labeling them "anti-gay", she might have more gay support.

Besides, she has a long way to go before she gets the nomination. I'm still guessing it will come down to either Romney or Perry.

My feeling as well. I think it's Romney or Perry when the dust settles.

Writerbuckeye;861914 wrote:I think it's Romney or Perry when the dust settles.

I agree.

Just so it's not Palin or Bachmann. If either one of those bitches gets elected, I'm moving to Canada.

the "i'm moving to Canada" thing is nice, but no one ever does it.

the "i'm moving to Canada" thing is nice, but no one ever does it.

FairwoodKing;862060 wrote:Just so it's not Palin or Bachmann. If either one of those bitches gets elected, I'm moving to Canada.

Grow some balls. If conservatives can deal with Barney in Congress, you can live through a Palin or Bachmann administration.

believer;862162 wrote:Grow some balls. If conservatives can deal with Barney in Congress, you can live through a Palin or Bachmann administration.

I had to grow balls to live through the George W. Bush administration. Enough is enough.

Hop in your car and drive to Canada then Fairwood.

FairwoodKing;861807 wrote:Gays and lesbians probably don't constitute ten percent of the population, but with our friends we easily have at least ten percent of the votes. Let's put it this way, we can't put anyone in office but we can keep someone out.

Oh come on, if that is true then how did GWB get elected twice?

You don't get to add in "friends and familes" to get to 10% either, thats just plain stupid as we all know that a good portion of homosexuals have familes who don't like their homosexual lifestyle and therefore probably have different political views.

FairwoodKing;862060 wrote:Just so it's not Palin or Bachmann. If either one of those bitches gets elected, I'm moving to Canada.

lol, I hope they run together now and win because that's just retarded.

That's just as dumb as the rednecks who said they were moving if Obama won.