"No, they're not all equal in their wrongdoings. Republicans have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of the evil things done in the US or by the US in the last 60 years, even when you take into account the fact that they held the presidency most of the time."
The Dems have controlled the house and senate for a huge majority of that time, who makes laws and spends money? Democratic presidents got us into Vietnam, as for your excuse I suppose if Hillary or Obama win the election (both of whom have said they dont know when they'll get troups out) and things get far worse it will be more Hillaries fault than Bushes? get real..
As for Nixon being over the worst part? " By 1968, the peak of U.S. involvement, there were more than 500,000 troops in the country. During the same two-week period of April that year, 752 U.S. soldiers died, according to a search of records kept by the National Archives."
Growth rates may be higher, but actual wealth and population is still significantly higher in the north.
But its not trending that way... No people are not going to pick up and leave the north *all at once* but you are seeing allot of yanks and half backs in the Carolina these days... Far more than you are seeing Carolinians in the NE.
In 1997 the states mentioned above had a GDP which was about 1.7% higher than NY, in 2004 that difference had risen to about 3.1% higher! In 7 years there was a nearly 50% increase in that gap
But the plants in the less regulated areas will produce more pollution, that's my point.
Look I grew up in Buffalo NY and the plants today are a ton more clean than the plants 30 years ago. If you think the folks down there will be upset that they are taking jobs from you youre way off the mark..
"I'd consider being able to live in a non-polluted environment a 'basic right'"
Even if "being able to live in a non-polluted environment a 'basic right'" You're helping my argument. The government does not tax punitively to protect our rights, they regulate. There is no government tax aimed at 'protecting my free speech' there are regulations telling me what the limit of my expression is and telling others what they must respect. If the government wants to protect the environment through reasonable regulations *especially at the state level* I'm fine with that but when they decide they are going to make 'the kids' behave better 'or else they'll take away our toys (money)' your marching towards totalitarianism... Have a nice walk..
Government brought the corporation into this world, and government can take it out just as quickly. As far as power generation goes
No at all, the Government does not create corporations, they may license them but I dont see senators and congressmen putting their life savings and loan debt on the line to start a new company. When a friend of mine started a service master company not one government official gave her a dollar towards the investment nor did they even pick up a broom to help with the work. But yes they were quite happy to take her money for registering as a corporation. BTW the government can take you out of this world with ease does that mean they should?
As far as power generation goes, I'm sure the power companies want to bring clean, cheap power to its customers. However, NIMBY
If the people want the government to solve our energy problems through tax incentives, and they vote accordingly
We are *NOT* a mob rule nation and we should not endow the federal government with the power and habit of punishing us to 'solve our problems'. Later on in the end it, with regards to our civil liberties, it will bite us in the butt. This is not a 'tax incentive' this is a tax punishment! This is like calling income taxes 'revenue' or 'investment' its a nice play on words but its not accurate. We need to invest more in education, its for the kids means 'The 10K per kid per year were spending is not enough so were going to take more of youre money and hope, for once, well do better with it this time'
Im all for regulation in regards to the environment and real fines for breaking regulations.. It may seem like semantics today but the long term differences are significant.
Because the government is not mommy and daddy. I may give my daughter a treat if she behaves well (entitlement / subsidy) or put her to be early if she throws food on the floor ( Taxes ). Its a parents job to shape the behavior of their kids...
Unless Government is mommy and daddy they have no business doing anything out side of protecting our basic rights.. The leftist cry of 'it takes a village' might have a nice ring to it but its really nothing but using the 'Its for the children' logic to interfere with peoples day to day lives.
Now if the states want to set standards for emissions I'm all in favor of that regulation *especially at the state level* can be a good thing but taxes for the purpose of 'making people behave better' is really no different than sending around the gestapo to make people behave better... Its just putting the IRS (or state tax agency) as a middle man.
"yeah, the red states have been relying on that philosophy for decades. Funny thing, though, hasn't really worked overall. "
Are you kidding, the past 10-20 years has seen growth in the south far out pace growth in the north both in terms of population and wealth.
In 1971 NY had 41 Electoral votes the about the same same as the sum total (42) of GA (12), NC (13), AL (9), SC (8). In 2004 NY had 31 compared to 47 for the four states listed above.
of the kids in my family (7) 4 moved away from NY for better employment opportunities (in NY if you don't live down state your in trouble). Thw moved to the south TX / SC, one moved west CA, and one moved the the mid west MN.
"The funny thing is you're going to suffer, too. I wonder how much you're going to be complaining about limiting pollution when it reaches you."
No the way this will affect him is because when auto makers start making changes for higher emission standards in the NE they are not going to make a second set of cars for the south.. He will have to buy the same, more expensive, vehicle that you do..
"eah, the red states have been relying on that philosophy for decades. Funny thing, though, hasn't really worked overall. "
Are you kidding, the past 10-20 years has seen growth in the south far out pace growth in the north both in terms of population and wealth.
In 1971 NY had 41 Electoral votes the about the same same as the sum total (42) of GA (12), NC (13), AL (9), SC (8). In 2004 NY had 31 compared to 47 for the four states listed above.
of the kids in my family (7) 4 moved away from NY for better employment opportunities (in NY if you don't live down state your in trouble). Thw moved to the south TX / SC, one moved west CA, and one moved the the mid west MN.
"The funny thing is you're going to suffer, too. I wonder how much you're going to be complaining about limiting pollution when it reaches you."
No the way this will affect him is because when auto makers start making changes for higher emission standards in the NE they are not going to make a second set of cars for the south.. He will have to buy the same, more expensive, vehicle that you do..
Well the law suit is crap NY has no place telling the federal government (and thus 49 other states) what their fuel efficiency levels should be.
But a group of states getting together saying *this is what we require for fuel efficiency for cars sold in NY, MA, CT, PA, NJ, NH, VT, and ME is a great idea. I honestly think you confuse NeoCons for states rights folks. I have a pretty good conservative pedigree and I am defiantly a states right guy but Im disgusted with the GOP of all the candidates running I might be able to pull the lever for two of them and only be mildly happy with one of them.
I feel the same way with 'universal health care' let each state find a solution that works for its population demographics. States that find a really smart way will be imitated. The worse ideas will dies off.
If a state goes overly to the right or left its allot easier to move to another state than another country..
They will when there are blackouts... Seriously.. Short of NYC pretty much everything in NYS is powered by Coal fire all the power of Niagara falls bypasses upstate and western NY... So those folk in the most economically depressed areas of the state will be the ones with power problems..
This is why I left NY, It was bad enough under Cuomo but Spitzer literally *hates* business... If not for the critical mass of NY City the entire state would be a wasteland for jobs...
"P2P installs could adversely affect national security when they made confidential government information available."
--
Oh wait, that was someone leaving a laptop around..
Speaking of which if the people running government IT shops did their job users would (a) not be able to install P2P software and (b) not be able to send traffic over the commonly used P2P ports..
The problem here is that the Republicans will shut down the federal government if the Dems don't give them what they want.
Thats not a problem its call resolution! And if the republicans can muster the resolve to fight to stop entitlements then dammit the dems should be willing to shut down the government to stop if from infringing on our liberties!
When someone ask why its shut down just answer 'We thought it better to shut down the federal government than to allow it to dismantle the bill of rights. Pelosi is nothing but a calculating coward..
they already break the law with impunity, how much more would it take for them to throw out the entire Constitution in order to keep their power?
Better a death by a thousand cuts? Guess what, youre not getting a super majority in the hose and senate in 2008, nor 2012... If you cant for our liberties now get the hell out of the way for someone who will... Ill take 41% of the house and senate who are willing to fight for our rights rather than 51% who will let them erode 'until the time is right'. You're actually making excuses for the Democrats on passing this? how much of a party hack are you? "Yea its the republicans fault a democrat controlled house passed a bill shredding the constitution" "They have been doing it longer than us so you cant really be mad at the dems"
Republicans are willing to destroy the government if they don't get their way.
Come off of it they shut down the government in 94 and in 96? and the government survived...
Our government is designed to halt on major disagreement, back in 1789 that was a feature but now it's a bug. If the Social Security checks stop flowing
Which is freaking why you should not have the fed doing all this crap in the first place.. It *is* a good thing that the minority can stop things from going through.
Walmart's shelves go empty, and every Republican goes on TV to blame the Democrats
They tried that in 96 and the republicans took a drubbing in public opinion for it
Actually, it's more like a cop sees a man beating his wife in the middle of a cheering crowd who are all packing machine guns
Except that the cops outnumber the crowd...
You can try to stop the assault but there's a good chance you're going to go down too, or you can wait for backup. In this case, the backup is still a year away.
Except this was the Dems *actively* passing a bill... Its like giving the mugger brass knuckles while you 'wait for backup'.. BTW The dems swear up and down that the huge majority of hte people are with them on getting out of Iraq now, on Ending crap like this domestic spying.. either (a) They dont buy their own propaganda or (b) They dont care what a huge majority of the people want.
I think the Dems are pretty spineless too, but even in their weakened state the Republicans are still more powerful because they've got the Executive and the Judicial wrapped up.
Had the dems simply not passed this bill the judicial branch would not have been involved...
Dems impeach Bush? Martial Law.
I dont fault them for not impeaching, for this you need the votes.. All the dems had to do to prevent the situation from getting worse is *not pass this bill*. You can make all the excuses in the world but if they cant summon the will to stop this bill when they are a simple majority I fear greatly for what they would do as a super majority.
Dems want to expand a welfare program to include lower middle class people? Republicans threaten to shutdown the entire government in response.
Besides, I dont fault them for having their agenda hampered by the minority, its a good thing that can happen its why were are not a mob democracy. Wha tI fault them for is *going along with the minority on this bill*. The republicans have the stones to shut down the government to stop an entitlement program but the dems cant muster the will to fight over our civil liberties? whats the problem here?
No, go back and read. The Dems don't have a big enough majority to beat a veto by Bush.
The Dems dont veto anything, the worst part is they cant override a bush veto... But very *very* few congresses have ever had one party in a super majority and the Republicans in the early 90's as a *vast* minority did more to shape the agenda then the Dems are doing today. If they were so inclined the dems could go to the mat with Bush right now... They could have for example *NOT PASSED THIS TRAVESTY OF A BILL*
They don't have a big enough majority to stop a filibuster.
The cowards could let the republicans filibuster over the right to ease drop without a warrant, personally if every decision you make as the majority is based upon opinion polls and spin you dont deserve a super majority...
So there's little hope of them getting anything done.
You're not getting this... The american people did not send them to do something, they sent them to *STOP* something... Im not asking to impeach the guy theres not point trying but how the hell did they pass this! This is *actively!* participating in the process.
The Dems have a _slim_ majority, but it's their fault that the march towards a police step continues unabated?
It is, at this point, as much their fault as Bushes because this was not a result of them not being able to over come a veto this was: Bill "Should Bushes unconstitutional domestic spying continue" Democrats: "AYE!".
And how many Republicans are pushing for a flag burning amendment?
You mean like this? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121401887.html) "Clinton, apparently, could not agree less. Along with Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, she has introduced a bill that would make flag burning illegal." Dont know, off the top of my head, the number of republicans trying to ban flag burning but I know Hillary is one of them.
Spare me this petty bullshit and pay attention to something that actually fucking matters.
Says the man who ignore the fact the dems just voted in favor of unconstitutional spying while deflecting with the evils of the flag burning amendment (Which incidentally the front running dem for the white house supports)... Sorry to say this but I have to be honest, if you buy the DNC line that 'when we have a super majority well be different' your as foolish as the republican voters who have been believing that for 13 years..
FYI: This is why traditional conservatives are for small government... I call my self a small government socialist and a big government conservative... I want states (like MN for example) to take care of healthcare, education,..... Pretty much anything but foreign relations, *actual* interstate issues, and the military..
Your state reps are allot more accountable then your federal ones..
Huh? Thats like saying if a cop (Democrats) sees a man beating his wife (Bush and the Constitution) hes not at fault for standing by and doing *nothing*..
Bush and the rest of the proto-fascists have a hard on for this police state they're creating
You just dont seem to get it... why did the dems not strongly oppose this? Because odds are they will be in the white house in 2008 and they would love to have this kind of power... Remember all the 'missing' FBI files in the white hose during the last administration?
They are playing a game; when one is in power the other uses procedural measures to stop them (like stopping judges from even getting a vote), the party in power complains about obstruction tactics the political winds of change blow and when the shoe is on the other foot its the same game with the roles reversed.
You cant honestly believe the party that considers hate speech too offensive to be covered by the first amendment is anything short of a fascist entity can you? The dems tell you what to think, and the republicans listen in to every word you say... Either way until some third parties start asserting themselves we are in real trouble..
and there is little the Dems can do to stop it, for the time being.
LOL you cant really be saying this, your as bad as the Republicans who blindly let their party leave its core values (small government) under the guise of 'well we dont have a super majority, but when we do, then things will be different'... What a sad joke. The dems have more than enough power to stop *everything* this administration wants to do, they just dont want to fight for it...
The GOP as a minority party killed everything Bill Clinton tried to do between 1992 and 1994. They made their agenda (for example: welfare reform, balanced budgets, and (unfortunately) NAFTA) Clinton's agenda. Phil Graham risked his political career to stop Hillary care and won. Sadly that GOP is gone all we are left with is two parties with *slightly* different agendas (no neither is about the constitution or your rights) who will do whatever they can to accomplish it.
In the whole republican field there are only two or three candidates worth even looking at (Thompson, Huckabee, and Paul) on the D side were it not for Abortion I would consider John Edwards and would have Obama until I looked more into his positions on social issues. I will say I respect Obamas call for 'no lobbyist in his admin, and every member of his admin will sign an agreement not to lobby until at least 2012 should they leave before its over'...
Socially I think Obama has a 'progressive' view of the constitution (e.g. Open to modern interpretation for our feelings...
Actually most state sales taxes are primarily owed by the consumer (a store is just the middle man) If I go to a neighboring state to buy a car because they have no sales tax legally I owe the state I live in what I would have paid..
As a conservative republican I agree... I think sales taxes are far superior to income taxes as they tax consumption and not production. For now leave the ban in place but why should an online sotre *permanently* have that advantage over brick and mortar?
Primary education is also clearly bad by your "compulsory" logic
Ummm Primary public education is not compulosry you can send your kids to a private school or home school (well unless your in Germany then the state owns your kid).
Obviously, a poorly educated society is a productive one.
I know its a straw man but Ill smack him anyways: Productivity and education are not very related, the US has by most measures a much poorer educational system than most of Europe and Asia and about the most productive workers in the world..
Slashdot Mirror
The Dems have controlled the house and senate for a huge majority of that time, who makes laws and spends money? Democratic presidents got us into Vietnam, as for your excuse I suppose if Hillary or Obama win the election (both of whom have said they dont know when they'll get troups out) and things get far worse it will be more Hillaries fault than Bushes? get real..
As for Nixon being over the worst part? " By 1968, the peak of U.S. involvement, there were more than 500,000 troops in the country. During the same two-week period of April that year, 752 U.S. soldiers died, according to a search of records kept by the National Archives."
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
No percent of your money is enough..
But its not trending that way... No people are not going to pick up and leave the north *all at once* but you are seeing allot of yanks and half backs in the Carolina these days... Far more than you are seeing Carolinians in the NE.
In 1997 the states mentioned above had a GDP which was about 1.7% higher than NY, in 2004 that difference had risen to about 3.1% higher! In 7 years there was a nearly 50% increase in that gap
But the plants in the less regulated areas will produce more pollution, that's my point.
Look I grew up in Buffalo NY and the plants today are a ton more clean than the plants 30 years ago. If you think the folks down there will be upset that they are taking jobs from you youre way off the mark..
Even if "being able to live in a non-polluted environment a 'basic right'" You're helping my argument. The government does not tax punitively to protect our rights, they regulate. There is no government tax aimed at 'protecting my free speech' there are regulations telling me what the limit of my expression is and telling others what they must respect. If the government wants to protect the environment through reasonable regulations *especially at the state level* I'm fine with that but when they decide they are going to make 'the kids' behave better 'or else they'll take away our toys (money)' your marching towards totalitarianism... Have a nice walk..
No at all, the Government does not create corporations, they may license them but I dont see senators and congressmen putting their life savings and loan debt on the line to start a new company. When a friend of mine started a service master company not one government official gave her a dollar towards the investment nor did they even pick up a broom to help with the work. But yes they were quite happy to take her money for registering as a corporation. BTW the government can take you out of this world with ease does that mean they should?
As far as power generation goes, I'm sure the power companies want to bring clean, cheap power to its customers. However, NIMBY
Of course, look at Kennedy..
We are *NOT* a mob rule nation and we should not endow the federal government with the power and habit of punishing us to 'solve our problems'. Later on in the end it, with regards to our civil liberties, it will bite us in the butt. This is not a 'tax incentive' this is a tax punishment! This is like calling income taxes 'revenue' or 'investment' its a nice play on words but its not accurate. We need to invest more in education, its for the kids means 'The 10K per kid per year were spending is not enough so were going to take more of youre money and hope, for once, well do better with it this time'
Im all for regulation in regards to the environment and real fines for breaking regulations.. It may seem like semantics today but the long term differences are significant.
Because the government is not mommy and daddy. I may give my daughter a treat if she behaves well (entitlement / subsidy) or put her to be early if she throws food on the floor ( Taxes ). Its a parents job to shape the behavior of their kids...
Unless Government is mommy and daddy they have no business doing anything out side of protecting our basic rights.. The leftist cry of 'it takes a village' might have a nice ring to it but its really nothing but using the 'Its for the children' logic to interfere with peoples day to day lives.
Now if the states want to set standards for emissions I'm all in favor of that regulation *especially at the state level* can be a good thing but taxes for the purpose of 'making people behave better' is really no different than sending around the gestapo to make people behave better... Its just putting the IRS (or state tax agency) as a middle man.
"yeah, the red states have been relying on that philosophy for decades. Funny thing, though, hasn't really worked overall. "
Are you kidding, the past 10-20 years has seen growth in the south far out pace growth in the north both in terms of population and wealth.
In 1971 NY had 41 Electoral votes the about the same same as the sum total (42) of GA (12), NC (13), AL (9), SC (8). In 2004 NY had 31 compared to 47 for the four states listed above.
of the kids in my family (7) 4 moved away from NY for better employment opportunities (in NY if you don't live down state your in trouble). Thw moved to the south TX / SC, one moved west CA, and one moved the the mid west MN.
"The funny thing is you're going to suffer, too. I wonder how much you're going to be complaining about limiting pollution when it reaches you."
No the way this will affect him is because when auto makers start making changes for higher emission standards in the NE they are not going to make a second set of cars for the south.. He will have to buy the same, more expensive, vehicle that you do..
"eah, the red states have been relying on that philosophy for decades. Funny thing, though, hasn't really worked overall. " Are you kidding, the past 10-20 years has seen growth in the south far out pace growth in the north both in terms of population and wealth. In 1971 NY had 41 Electoral votes the about the same same as the sum total (42) of GA (12), NC (13), AL (9), SC (8). In 2004 NY had 31 compared to 47 for the four states listed above. of the kids in my family (7) 4 moved away from NY for better employment opportunities (in NY if you don't live down state your in trouble). Thw moved to the south TX / SC, one moved west CA, and one moved the the mid west MN. "The funny thing is you're going to suffer, too. I wonder how much you're going to be complaining about limiting pollution when it reaches you." No the way this will affect him is because when auto makers start making changes for higher emission standards in the NE they are not going to make a second set of cars for the south.. He will have to buy the same, more expensive, vehicle that you do..
As a states rights person:
Well the law suit is crap NY has no place telling the federal government (and thus 49 other states) what their fuel efficiency levels should be.
But a group of states getting together saying *this is what we require for fuel efficiency for cars sold in NY, MA, CT, PA, NJ, NH, VT, and ME is a great idea. I honestly think you confuse NeoCons for states rights folks. I have a pretty good conservative pedigree and I am defiantly a states right guy but Im disgusted with the GOP of all the candidates running I might be able to pull the lever for two of them and only be mildly happy with one of them.
I feel the same way with 'universal health care' let each state find a solution that works for its population demographics. States that find a really smart way will be imitated. The worse ideas will dies off.
If a state goes overly to the right or left its allot easier to move to another state than another country..
Except, in principle, we should not be social engineering through taxes..
They will when there are blackouts... Seriously.. Short of NYC pretty much everything in NYS is powered by Coal fire all the power of Niagara falls bypasses upstate and western NY... So those folk in the most economically depressed areas of the state will be the ones with power problems..
This is why I left NY, It was bad enough under Cuomo but Spitzer literally *hates* business... If not for the critical mass of NY City the entire state would be a wasteland for jobs...
"P2P installs could adversely affect national security when they made confidential government information available." -- Oh wait, that was someone leaving a laptop around.. Speaking of which if the people running government IT shops did their job users would (a) not be able to install P2P software and (b) not be able to send traffic over the commonly used P2P ports..
Thats not a problem its call resolution! And if the republicans can muster the resolve to fight to stop entitlements then dammit the dems should be willing to shut down the government to stop if from infringing on our liberties!
When someone ask why its shut down just answer 'We thought it better to shut down the federal government than to allow it to dismantle the bill of rights. Pelosi is nothing but a calculating coward..
they already break the law with impunity, how much more would it take for them to throw out the entire Constitution in order to keep their power?
Better a death by a thousand cuts? Guess what, youre not getting a super majority in the hose and senate in 2008, nor 2012... If you cant for our liberties now get the hell out of the way for someone who will... Ill take 41% of the house and senate who are willing to fight for our rights rather than 51% who will let them erode 'until the time is right'. You're actually making excuses for the Democrats on passing this? how much of a party hack are you? "Yea its the republicans fault a democrat controlled house passed a bill shredding the constitution" "They have been doing it longer than us so you cant really be mad at the dems"
Republicans are willing to destroy the government if they don't get their way.
Come off of it they shut down the government in 94 and in 96? and the government survived...
Our government is designed to halt on major disagreement, back in 1789 that was a feature but now it's a bug. If the Social Security checks stop flowing
Which is freaking why you should not have the fed doing all this crap in the first place.. It *is* a good thing that the minority can stop things from going through.
Walmart's shelves go empty, and every Republican goes on TV to blame the Democrats
They tried that in 96 and the republicans took a drubbing in public opinion for it
Except that the cops outnumber the crowd...
You can try to stop the assault but there's a good chance you're going to go down too, or you can wait for backup. In this case, the backup is still a year away.
Except this was the Dems *actively* passing a bill... Its like giving the mugger brass knuckles while you 'wait for backup'.. BTW The dems swear up and down that the huge majority of hte people are with them on getting out of Iraq now, on Ending crap like this domestic spying.. either (a) They dont buy their own propaganda or (b) They dont care what a huge majority of the people want.
I think the Dems are pretty spineless too, but even in their weakened state the Republicans are still more powerful because they've got the Executive and the Judicial wrapped up.
Had the dems simply not passed this bill the judicial branch would not have been involved...
Dems impeach Bush? Martial Law.
I dont fault them for not impeaching, for this you need the votes.. All the dems had to do to prevent the situation from getting worse is *not pass this bill*. You can make all the excuses in the world but if they cant summon the will to stop this bill when they are a simple majority I fear greatly for what they would do as a super majority.
Dems want to expand a welfare program to include lower middle class people? Republicans threaten to shutdown the entire government in response.
Besides, I dont fault them for having their agenda hampered by the minority, its a good thing that can happen its why were are not a mob democracy. Wha tI fault them for is *going along with the minority on this bill*. The republicans have the stones to shut down the government to stop an entitlement program but the dems cant muster the will to fight over our civil liberties? whats the problem here?
The Dems dont veto anything, the worst part is they cant override a bush veto... But very *very* few congresses have ever had one party in a super majority and the Republicans in the early 90's as a *vast* minority did more to shape the agenda then the Dems are doing today. If they were so inclined the dems could go to the mat with Bush right now... They could have for example *NOT PASSED THIS TRAVESTY OF A BILL*
They don't have a big enough majority to stop a filibuster.
The cowards could let the republicans filibuster over the right to ease drop without a warrant, personally if every decision you make as the majority is based upon opinion polls and spin you dont deserve a super majority...
So there's little hope of them getting anything done.
You're not getting this... The american people did not send them to do something, they sent them to *STOP* something... Im not asking to impeach the guy theres not point trying but how the hell did they pass this! This is *actively!* participating in the process.
The Dems have a _slim_ majority, but it's their fault that the march towards a police step continues unabated?
It is, at this point, as much their fault as Bushes because this was not a result of them not being able to over come a veto this was: Bill "Should Bushes unconstitutional domestic spying continue" Democrats: "AYE!".
And how many Republicans are pushing for a flag burning amendment?
You mean like this? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121401887.html) "Clinton, apparently, could not agree less. Along with Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, she has introduced a bill that would make flag burning illegal." Dont know, off the top of my head, the number of republicans trying to ban flag burning but I know Hillary is one of them.
Spare me this petty bullshit and pay attention to something that actually fucking matters.
Says the man who ignore the fact the dems just voted in favor of unconstitutional spying while deflecting with the evils of the flag burning amendment (Which incidentally the front running dem for the white house supports)... Sorry to say this but I have to be honest, if you buy the DNC line that 'when we have a super majority well be different' your as foolish as the republican voters who have been believing that for 13 years..
FYI: This is why traditional conservatives are for small government... I call my self a small government socialist and a big government conservative... I want states (like MN for example) to take care of healthcare, education, ..... Pretty much anything but foreign relations, *actual* interstate issues, and the military..
Your state reps are allot more accountable then your federal ones..
Huh? Thats like saying if a cop (Democrats) sees a man beating his wife (Bush and the Constitution) hes not at fault for standing by and doing *nothing*..
Bush and the rest of the proto-fascists have a hard on for this police state they're creating
You just dont seem to get it... why did the dems not strongly oppose this? Because odds are they will be in the white house in 2008 and they would love to have this kind of power... Remember all the 'missing' FBI files in the white hose during the last administration?
They are playing a game; when one is in power the other uses procedural measures to stop them (like stopping judges from even getting a vote), the party in power complains about obstruction tactics the political winds of change blow and when the shoe is on the other foot its the same game with the roles reversed.
You cant honestly believe the party that considers hate speech too offensive to be covered by the first amendment is anything short of a fascist entity can you? The dems tell you what to think, and the republicans listen in to every word you say... Either way until some third parties start asserting themselves we are in real trouble..
and there is little the Dems can do to stop it, for the time being.
LOL you cant really be saying this, your as bad as the Republicans who blindly let their party leave its core values (small government) under the guise of 'well we dont have a super majority, but when we do, then things will be different'... What a sad joke. The dems have more than enough power to stop *everything* this administration wants to do, they just dont want to fight for it...
The GOP as a minority party killed everything Bill Clinton tried to do between 1992 and 1994. They made their agenda (for example: welfare reform, balanced budgets, and (unfortunately) NAFTA) Clinton's agenda. Phil Graham risked his political career to stop Hillary care and won. Sadly that GOP is gone all we are left with is two parties with *slightly* different agendas (no neither is about the constitution or your rights) who will do whatever they can to accomplish it.
Of course the dems passed this, you dont think Hillary wants this kind of power when she is in the white house?
Yes and the same can be said of the Democrats who went along with this travesty...
In the whole republican field there are only two or three candidates worth even looking at (Thompson, Huckabee, and Paul) on the D side were it not for Abortion I would consider John Edwards and would have Obama until I looked more into his positions on social issues. I will say I respect Obamas call for 'no lobbyist in his admin, and every member of his admin will sign an agreement not to lobby until at least 2012 should they leave before its over'... Socially I think Obama has a 'progressive' view of the constitution (e.g. Open to modern interpretation for our feelings...
Actually most state sales taxes are primarily owed by the consumer (a store is just the middle man) If I go to a neighboring state to buy a car because they have no sales tax legally I owe the state I live in what I would have paid..
As a conservative republican I agree... I think sales taxes are far superior to income taxes as they tax consumption and not production. For now leave the ban in place but why should an online sotre *permanently* have that advantage over brick and mortar?
Ummm Primary public education is not compulosry you can send your kids to a private school or home school (well unless your in Germany then the state owns your kid).
Obviously, a poorly educated society is a productive one.
I know its a straw man but Ill smack him anyways: Productivity and education are not very related, the US has by most measures a much poorer educational system than most of Europe and Asia and about the most productive workers in the world..