No , I was making reference to the civil war.Many liberals look at it as good thing.That slavery was bad so you go along with the program to trump state rights.But do not realized you will be screaming and yelling if the north tried to pass law to keep slavery at federal level and each state cannot say no to slavery.Or in 5 or 10 years from now a new Bush tried to push god in every state ,ban abortion and gay marriage.
That what I was trying say by pick and choose.
Tamper your foreign policy views a bit, drop your Rebel sympathies, and come join the Democratic Party. Besides what I mentioned, you sound like a pretty good populist Democrat with pragmatic and semilibertarian views which we certainly need more of in the party.
Or declare yourself an independent and vote for candidates based on their stance on issues you care about and perhaps support independent candidates when possible. Nobody says you have to pick a side.
I explained exactly what I mean.
Look at the constitution again. It does not say “The federal government shall have no rights unless written into this document.” It says “What wasn’t written here will be considered a power of the states.” It doesn’t stop the federal government from taking on new powers either by accretion or by donation. The exact configuration of Federal vs State powers has always been in flux as a result.
I’m not looking at it from a moral point of view. False attribution, assumption, and putting words in others’ mouths isn’t useful to any debate.
I specifically looked at it from a “this is how the government is currently running” vantage point. Please elaborate on how it’s running “wrong.” If it’s purely a states’ rights view from your side, okay. I accept that you have a different view of how that configuration should look. From the opposite side, can you tell me why your ideal would be better? What efficiencies and such can be derived from your ideal system? Inefficiencies?
…What?
The executive branch is not a dictatorship It cannot do this. Though, I personally believe that too much power has been granted by the legislature. However, should the time come that Obama Jr or Bush Mark 3 come to power and attempt to do so, I’m fairly certain that they will be removed from power via violence.
I think you could stand to become better informed on some of these issues before you decide what label to apply to yourself. And it’s true that not that many people fit 100% into either of the two national parties.
Like other posters, I have no idea how this is supporting Bush. He may have wanted to go after Iran in theory, but he didn’t, and the U.S. was never close to war with North Korea. It still isn’t. And he did choose to go after Iraq, which you say was a bad idea. Are you talking about an approach to diplomacy or international relations?
This doesn’t really mean anything.
Wait- why are these being lumped together?
So what do you think should actually happen here? What’s “a more a centrist government?”
Everybody on both sides of the partisan divide - except a few extremists - admits that this is totally impossible. Which is good, because it really is impossible and a terrible idea from an economic standpoint. Since there’s no way 11 million illegal immigrants are going to be jailed, what is your backup plan?
What?
What does this mean? I don’t have a clue.
On to issues like sex ,drugs and prostitution , I suuport small goverment and there is no need for big brother telling people want they can or cannot do.
They’re full of shit. The war was mostly the CSA’s desire to continue practicing slavery.
That doesn’t mean they’re equally wrong.
Why do you repeatedly bring up “confederate supporters”? This is very odd to me and I must admit, it makes me a bit wary.