# republicans not conservatives anymore



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

No Federalism on the Right

Thursday, May 12, 2005

By David Boaz

If conservatives don't want federalism any more, will liberals pick up the banner?

Federalism has always been a key element of American conservatism. In his 1960 manifesto, The Conscience of a Conservative, Barry Goldwater called for the federal government to "withdraw promptly and totally from every jurisdiction which the Constitution reserves to the states."

Ronald Reagan ran for president promising to send 25 percent of federal taxes and spending back to the states. As Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, Newt Gingrich stressed that "we are committed to getting power back to the states."

Lately, though, conservatives -- at last in control of both the White House and both houses of Congress -- have forgotten their longstanding commitment to reduce federal power and intrusiveness and return many governmental functions to the states. Instead, they have taken to using their newfound power to impose their own ideas on the whole country.

Conservatives once opposed the creation of a federal Education Department. Congressional Republicans warned, "Decisions which are now made in the local school or school district will slowly but surely be transferred to Washington&#8230;. The Department of Education will end up being the Nation's super schoolboard. That is something we can all do without.''

But President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act establishes national education testing standards and makes every local school district accountable to federal bureaucrats in Washington.

President Bush and conservative Republicans have been trying to restrain lawsuit abuse by allowing class-action suits to be moved from state to federal courts. The 2002 election law imposed national standards on the states in such areas as registration and provisional balloting. A 2004 law established federal standards for state-issued driver's licenses and personal identification cards.

President Bush's "Project Safe Neighborhoods" transfers the prosecution of gun crimes from states to the federal government. The administration is trying to persuade federal courts to block implementation of state initiatives on medical marijuana in California and assisted suicide in Oregon.

Perhaps most notoriously, President Bush and conservatives are pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in all 50 states. They talk about runaway judges and democratic decision-making, but their amendment would forbid the people of New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, California or any other state from deciding to allow same-sex marriage. Marriage law has always been a matter for the states. We should not impose one uniform marriage law on what conservatives used to call "the sovereign states."

Most recently, we have the specter of the Republican Congress seeking to override six Florida court decisions in the tragic case of Terri Schiavo, intruding the federal government into yet another place it doesn't belong. Asked on Fox News about the oddity of conservatives seeking to over-ride states' rights, Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes responded: "Please! States' rights? Look, this is a moral issue."

Which is what liberal Democrats always said, of course, as they spent 50 years eroding federalism and expanding the power of the federal government at every turn. They had a point when it came to the civil rights laws; Southern states were violating the constitutional rights of black citizens. But that was no excuse for federalizing everything from the minimum wage to the speed limit to environmental regulations.

For decades, liberals scoffed at federalist arguments that the people of Wisconsin or Wyoming understood their own needs better than a distant Congress. They brought more and more power to Washington, over-riding state legislatures and imposing mandates on every nook and cranny of governance.

Now those chickens have come home to roost. Republicans run Washington, and they're using the federal power that liberals built in ways that liberals never envisioned.

Some liberals are rediscovering the virtues of federalism. They dimly recall that Justice Louis Brandeis called the states "laboratories of democracy" and are seeking to pursue their own policies at the state level when they fail in Washington. The prospect of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage has made many liberals appreciate the virtues of having 50 states, each free to make its own marriage law.

Some have even come to appreciate the value of diversity: Virginia and Vermont may have different marriage laws, and that's OK. Maybe it would even be OK for Los Angeles and Louisiana to have different environmental regulations.

But most liberals can't give up their addiction to centralization. Even as they rail against federal intervention in the Schiavo case -- arch-liberal Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's delegate in Congress, discovers for the first time in her life that "the bedrock of who we are" is the "Founders' limited vision of the federal government" -- they push for stricter regulations on pesticides and painkillers, a higher national minimum wage, and federal gun control laws.

Only one modern political party has a history of taking federalism seriously, but Republicans have decided to abandon this principle to pander to small but vocal constituencies. The nation will be poorer for it.

David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and author of Libertarianism: A Primer.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Glad you agree Bob, I've been saying that the conservatives are becoming liberals and vise versa for about a month now.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hi Bob

Sad to say, but I partially agree. I sometimes wonder if they didn't see some of the success the liberals were having with this, and by acting like them (spending like mad men) they hope to attract those who want something for nothing. Much of the spending like the war in Iraq has been necessary, but much has not.

I hope that many of the laws they are passing counter those that have been passed over the decades by the liberals. Then when many of those have been neutralized they can turn much of the power back to the states.

I am somewhat nervous about turning a lot of power back to the states. You can corrupt a county commissioner cheaper than a governor , and a governor cheaper than a president, and the congress ----- well, I suppose you can fool some of them all the time, all of them some of the time, but not all of them all the time.

I think much has changed and states can not fill some of the functions they did years ago. One thing near impossible would be for states of low population and/or high percentage of public land to produce enough revenue to maintain infrastructure.

The problem is both parties are shifting further left. The democrats are still the spend boys, they just beef about what Bush spends it on, and beefing about spending sounds good to the public. If they were in power they would change in the twinkle of an eye. The last election I believe witnessed the birth of moral issues, in our presidential election anyway. This may be the defining issues between the parties for the next couple elections at least. The voting balance of power right now is near equal and the moral issue, although small was a significant deciding factor in the last election. Of course the same could be said of the second amendment and many other issues. The sum total turned the nation to republican victory. The republican party is still the lesser of two evils.

Need to do a little edit here ---- thanks for a new subject to talk about.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Not the lesser of two evils, they just try to come off sounding that way. I suppose being that they control their own press and pay pundits to say nice things about them they could get you to believe anything, though.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

MT


> Militant_Tiger
> guest
> 
> Joined: 22 Feb 2004
> ...


You just keep opening your mouth and stickin your rear in it.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Bob, I've asked 2 of my kids teachers and about 3 other teachers how they felt about the NCLB. They all felt it is a good thing, the funding was a little tight but they were able to work it out. The teachers were in 3 different schools ranging from 1st grade, special ed, 3rd, 5th, and elementary principle. They felt that it s truly better for the teachers and the kids.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

racer66 said:


> MT
> 
> 
> > Militant_Tiger
> ...


A statement which I still agree with, I don't like the media coverage as a whole and I think they do a poor job of informing the people. How does said statement conflict with my first post in this thread?


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

You imply in your first statement that the media is one sided. In your statement that I quoted you refer to them as not one sided anymore. Ask Jimmy about it, he'll tell you.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

racer66 said:


> You imply in your first statement that the media is one sided. In your statement that I quoted you refer to them as not one sided anymore. Ask Jimmy about it, he'll tell you.


How exactly did I imply that media was no longer one sided? I simply stated that the government has helped to make the media yet more corrupt. They pay people to say nice things and give them lavish gifts, and never inform their viewers and listeners.

On a side note, I'm talking to jimmy at this very moment. Any questions for him?


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Does Jimmy have a shadow?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Bob that article is so full of holes and out of context statements it is laughable. Example, "President Bush and conservative Republicans have been trying to restrain lawsuit abuse by allowing class-action suits to be moved from state to federal courts". Completely out of context ........ the bill passed only moves class action law suits into the federal courts if it covers 2 or more states. This is designed to cut down the costs for junk law suits ....... like gun manufactures being taken to court because some dope head shot someone. A class action just in ND stays in ND.

David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and author of Libertarianism. Enough said about the truth of that article......well maybe that's to harsh..... lets just say I think the article is purposely slanted a little.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Gohon I know its biased, but there is definitely some truth in it, its just presented with the libertarian viewpoint. The arguments he makes are interesting and I see some of them as dead on. The republicans (whom I voted for) are not sticking to the ideals they claimed were dear to their hearts and I think we all should press them on it. They are definitley not the party of "less government" anymore. 
Plainsman, I believe a lot of the stuff they are involved in should be done at the state level it may be easier to corrupt someone at that level but its also easier for the people of that state to be aware of it and do something about it. Funding could be worked out. When you have some beaurcrat in Washington making educational decisions for people in ND or Georgia we have big problems. Good old Newt was talking about getting rid of some of that stuff , what happened to the Republican revolution of the 90's I'll tell you it fissled because they are more interested in staying in power than making tough decisions, decisions they ran on....


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Gohon I know its biased, but there is definitely some truth in it,


I agree there is a certain amount of truth to the statement.



> Good old Newt was talking about getting rid of some of that stuff , what happened to the Republican revolution of the 90's


Have you noticed that good old Newt is out traveling around talking about that very subject. Personally and despite the Democrats success to demonize Newt Gingrich I think he was one of the best and smartest congressmen to walk the halls of congress.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Newt Gingrich I think he was one of the best and smartest congressmen to walk the halls of congress.


Yeah I agree he was politically, and he through it all away, a lifetime of achievement, on a scandle with some woman, how smart was that?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Yeah I agree he was politically, and he through it all away, a lifetime of achievement, on a scandle with some woman, how smart was that?


Well.....that's exactly what I was talking about. There was no scandal except what was falsely made up. He was going through a divorce. Wife became sick and incurable and was hospitalized to never go home again. For what ever reason he asked her to sign the divorce papers while in the hospital and the media dogs went running with it. Their doing the same with Tom Delay. Ever notice how the little mice that file these types of charges are all on their way out when they are chosen by the Democrats to be the attack dog. The congressman that filed the charges on Tom Delay is no longer even in congress. Ditto for Newts attacker.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Two divorces, this is his third wife( 23 years younger), hes a womanizer which is common among the powerful men. I voted for him once and would again, but hes a pig about women. And a hippocrite to go after Clinton and wahts her name, he could of went after Clinton over Doral and the red Chinese and would of accomplished something worthwhile. Newt actaully came back home here to Ga. and apologized to us, his constituents for his actions with this woman so go get your facts straight. I like Newts political views he's a brilliant person politically, but hes no angel with women and his hanky panky is well known.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Here's how I see it, the Republicans have been forced to make alot of these changes that the author speaks of because of the agenda of the Liberals. Gay marriage for example, I don't give a rats behind what anybody says, a marriage is between a man and a woman, plain and simple, I won't back down from that and I don't think Bush will either. Does anybody wonder why we have the physical body parts that we do, males and females, JEEEEEZ it's not rocket science, they are meant to go together.

The NCLB Act I think is basically a good thing, maybe needs to be tweaked a little here and there. I did a little reading on it last night and from what I read I don't see where it took any rights away from states, if anything it probably gives them more rights, just sets standards for them to follow. As I stated before, the teachers I talked to like the NCLB, they are telling me it is rooting out alot of the half hearted teachers, and providing a better education for our kids. I'll stop blabbing now.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

racer66 said:


> Here's how I see it, the Republicans have been forced to make alot of these changes that the author speaks of because of the agenda of the Liberals. Gay marriage for example, I don't give a rats behind what anybody says, a marriage is between a man and a woman, plain and simple, I won't back down from that and I don't think Bush will either. Does anybody wonder why we have the physical body parts that we do, males and females, JEEEEEZ it's not rocket science, they are meant to go together.
> 
> The NCLB Act I think is basically a good thing, maybe needs to be tweaked a little here and there. I did a little reading on it last night and from what I read I don't see where it took any rights away from states, if anything it probably gives them more rights, just sets standards for them to follow. As I stated before, the teachers I talked to like the NCLB, they are telling me it is rooting out alot of the half hearted teachers, and providing a better education for our kids. I'll stop blabbing now.


How exactly does setting a national standard give more rights to the states? Its funny how much states rights mattered when a democrat was in office.

As to marriage being between a man and a woman, says who? The church? You bet, good thing we have a secular government. I don't think its your place to judge who can marry who, after all this is a free country.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have close family members that have just retired, and I normally am daydreaming about hunting when they talk about such things as NCLB. However, what I get from it is that it gets rid of half hearted teachers, but it does put some pressure on good teachers that makes no sense. Lets think about this for a minute. Have we all not know people that didn't have enough sense to find their a$$ with both hands? (I'm trying hard to leave that one alone) How can you not leave some behind.

I have noticed a change in attitude over the past 40 years. Remember when we spent money on the gifted. This is what put America ahead of everyone else. Now we spend more on the learning disabled children. I'm not heartless, and think they need an education also, but get real they are not going to find the cure for cancer, or put the next space ship on Mars.

I understand emotions and feel them also, but I make myself put them aside. Everyone of you do it when you see something you like, but don't buy it because you know you can't afford it. The NCLB sounds good, has good objectives, but can we afford it financially, and can we afford to squander money on the learning disabled at the expense of the gifted?

I like Bush, but I think we need to change this programs. Install standards, and cut the expense some. Bush simply is spending money on education to keep the liberals happy. They get the people excited over emotion issues with cute mantras like "it's for the children". Who would be against that?


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Boy, do some reading on the NCLB and come back and talk. As far as marriage being between a man and a woman, didn't Storm explain that one for you. I'm all for letting them be little BUTT DARTS cuz it is a free country, I don't understand it and never will. They don't have the same rights as a man and woman, and hopefully never will, they can have all of their civil unions they want.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I have noticed a change in attitude over the past 40 years. Remember when we spent money on the gifted. This is what put America ahead of everyone else. Now we spend more on the learning disabled children. I'm not heartless, and think they need an education also, but get real they are not going to find the cure for cancer, or put the next space ship on Mars.


Well you're a nice fellow then aren't you? They won't find the cure for cancer? I bet you said the same about polio. You're right, with an attitude like yours we won't ever find the cure for cancer or go to mars.

As well, I can recall when I complained that my advanced school wasn't getting enough funding that you and your side claimed that I didn't need no stinkin' funding, because you all got thru school just fine without any special programs.



> Boy, do some reading on the NCLB and come back and talk. As far as marriage being between a man and a woman, didn't Storm explain that one for you. I'm all for letting them be little BUTT DARTS cuz it is a free country, I don't understand it and never will. They don't have the same rights as a man and woman, and hopefully never will, they can have all of their civil unions they want.


Seperate but equal isin't equal at all. We live in a free country, how long will it take you to understand that we will have the same rights for all people.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I don't think its your place to judge who can marry who, after all this is a free country.


It is ours to judge. We do it everytime we go to the ballot box, and America isn't this sick in the head yet. Did you notice the eleven states that voted it down last election. You may be 16, but I don't think you will see it in your lifetime. At least I pray not. 
However, lets not get to far off subject for your pet problems.



> Well you're a nice fellow then aren't you? They won't find the cure for cancer? I bet you said the same about polio. You're right, with an attitude like yours we won't ever find the cure for cancer or go to mars.


You spend your money on the 40 to 50 IQ's and I"ll spend mine on the 130 to 140 IQ's and lets see which group makes the most impact to further medicine, space travel, and all the other advanced technologies. You think the other way and you go to a school for the gifted. Now that is scary, and convinces me you don't need any funding. They are wasting money on you.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

MT


> Seperate but equal isin't equal at all. We live in a free country, how long will it take you to understand that we will have the same rights for all people.


The majority of the US has had enough of the left wing, whacko, gay rights, nut jobs, and voted that way. They don't have the same rights when it comes to SS, medical benefits, and other govt. freebies, and as Plainsman said, I pray that they never will.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> so go get your facts straight.


I do have my facts straight, never mentioned or claimed he was married a certain amount of times. I just mentioned what the Democrats went after him on. As for him being married 3 times..... sounds like bad luck to me, so to call him a pig and a womanizer is simply small minded and petty. By the way, he isn't the one that went after Clinton and besides it wasn't over a woman but Clintons lying about a woman under oath. Clintons stupidity gave the Republicans, right or wrong all the ammunition they needed. Get your facts straight........


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> The majority of the US has had enough of the left wing, whacko, gay rights, nut jobs, and voted that way. They don't have the same rights when it comes to SS, medical benefits, and other govt. freebies, and as Plainsman said, I pray that they never will.


So in the land of the free we shouldn't give the same rights to everyone because you don't like gays. How can you not realize just how wrong you are? Use some common sense.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> The majority of the US has had enough of the left wing, whacko, gay rights, nut jobs, and voted that way. They don't have the same rights when it comes to SS, medical benefits, and other govt. freebies, and as Plainsman said, I pray that they never will.


 :beer: Got my vote.......


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... scent.html

Seems that its a mental issue, not a matter of choice. Are you telling me that they should be persecuted based on something they cant control? That doesn't sound very American.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

OK MT, without getting on your case let me be serious and try explain this to you. We are a free nation, but we live by the laws passed by the majority. You would be fore denying rights also, you just are not honest with yourself. If you could I guarantee you that you would stop racer from voting to stop gay marriage. Doesn't racer have the right to vote? Is there nothing you find wrong? If you think it is wrong would you attempt to prohibit it? We all have a thresh hold of what we will and will not accept. What we think is wrong and what we think is right. I was listening to trivia on the oldies station today and they were reading crazy laws around the world. It is legal in India to be married to a dog. So MT do you think we should be able to marry collies, or would you tell your friends you think they should stick to Poodles?

Racer, you got my vote also. :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> OK MT, without getting on your case let me be serious and try explain this to you. We are a free nation, but we live by the laws passed by the majority. You would be fore denying rights also, you just are not honest with yourself. If you could I guarantee you that you would stop racer from voting to stop gay marriage. Doesn't racer have the right to vote? Is there nothing you find wrong? If you think it is wrong would you attempt to prohibit it? We all have a thresh hold of what we will and will not accept. What we think is wrong and what we think is right. I was listening to trivia on the oldies station today and they were reading crazy laws around the world. It is legal in India to be married to a dog. So MT do you think we should be able to marry collies, or would you tell your friends you think they should stick to Poodles?


So if the public decides that there should be segregation once again we should reinstate it? It seems to me that it goes constitutional principles, then voters opinion. You can sway the voters with nifty ads and poor media coverage, the constitution doesn't change.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> Hamer cautions that the gay men's different brain activity could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it.


Hmmmm, it seems as though it quite possibly could be a matter of choice. That quote came right out of the article you linked Mt. How are we persecuting them Mt, prison time, whipping them, displaying them naked, turning dogs loose on them, come on get your head outa your keester. By the way, I don't recall saying I didn't like them, in fact I said it's a free country, let em do what they want, but don't compare it to a marriage between MAN and a WOMAN. They can all of the civil unions they want.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The constitution doesn't address gay marriage. If they could possibly have imagined this I think they certainly would have. I think the formers of the constitution would be rolling in their graves if they seen where we are at today. Today it appears that anything legal is ok with people. Don't tell me it is ok as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. That would let people do absolutely anything in public.



> It seems to me that it goes constitutional principles, then voters opinion.


You have that backwards also MT. The people have more power than the constitution. That is what created amendments. We the people can amend the constitution when ever we see fit. That is what endangers the second amendment, and some people are to naive to see it.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Here is some proof that things are swinging are way and people are just flat out tired of the left wing whackos.



> Friday, May 13, 2005
> 
> RICHMOND, Va. - The inscription "In God We Trust" on the facade of a government building in North Carolina does not violate the U.S. Constitution's guidelines on the separation of church and state, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
> 
> ...


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

More proof of even some Hollywooders moving to the right.



> The party that I felt comfortable with was no longer the party that I had supported over the years because I felt that there was an indefensible moral collapse that I could not justify. They failed to come to grips with the central problem of our time post-9/11, and I found that very, very disappointing, and the company they kept: the Michael Moores and the MoveOn.orgs and the Eli Parisers made me feel very, very uncomfortable.
> 
> -- Ron Silver, on why he left the Democratic party


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I do have my facts straight, never mentioned or claimed he was married a certain amount of times. I just mentioned what the Democrats went after him on. As for him being married 3 times..... sounds like bad luck to me, so to call him a pig and a womanizer is simply small minded and petty


Bad luck huh  maybe that he got caught! He is a womanizer and I think anyone that conducts themself like he does, running around on his wife is a pig. 


> There was no scandal except what was falsely made up. He was going through a divorce. Wife became sick and incurable and was hospitalized to never go home again. *For what ever reason *he asked her to sign the divorce papers while in the hospital and the media dogs went running with it.


The reason is hes a pig, about women. Anyone that would serve divorce papers on a critically ill woman is a cold hearted person. Its not "bad luck" to get divorced three times its a character flaw. Hes a brillant man politically but hes no one to look up to morally 


> By the way, he isn't the one that went after Clinton and besides it wasn't over a woman but Clintons lying about a woman under oath.


 while technically correct people in glass houses.....
I don't know what we are argueing about I agree with your points about the media you're right on, but Newts personal life is on record and well known in georgia. I wonder how someone so smart in one way can be so stupid personally. Same with Clinton why open yourself up for such a fall.
Down here in georgia their actions constitute a scandal, I guess you westerners are a little more open minded about this stuff :beer:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> The reason is hes a pig, about women. Anyone that would serve divorce papers on a critically ill woman is a cold hearted person.


Oh bull**** ................. you don't know any more about those details than I do or the yoyo's that were attacking him. If it's on the record what record are you talking about, those little magazines at the grocery store check out counter.



> Its not "bad luck" to get divorced three times its a character flaw


You're thinking really that shallow ???? You probable just slapped several people on this board and you also know nothing about them.................. and not that it matters but how many times has he been divorced?????


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Should of said divorced and remarried three times divorced twice. His latest trophy wife is half his age. I am not "slapping" anyone its a character flaw to be a womanizer that keeps divorcing and remarrying. The words in wedding vows "till death do us part" mean something. *Or should anyway.* :eyeroll: I'm not real PC!
Theres way too much of this divorce stuff and I don't care what anyone thinks of that opinion, its mine and I'm sticking to it. It has destroyed way too many kids lives, these selfish people should stop considering their own feelings and put their spouse and children first! If they did that they wouldnt need to get divorced. I think people should take marriage seriously and "serial marriages" are a sign of a character flaw big time. After really thinking about it I wouldn't vote for Newt again just on this basis alone.


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

> Conservatives once opposed the creation of a federal Education Department. Congressional Republicans warned, "Decisions which are now made in the local school or school district will slowly but surely be transferred to Washington&#8230;. The Department of Education will end up being the Nation's super schoolboard. That is something we can all do without.''


Living here in Kalifornia, this makes some sense. We spend half of our budget on education and we still have some of the worst scores in the nation. I am not a scholar on the NCLB act, but I do realize some of it's benefits when the state has major shortcomings in their education. Sadly, education is becoming a numbers game and the more degrees out there, the better. The education department [along with the unions] want to push more kids through the system and get more money per student. Also, NCLB ensures (or atleast helps) enforce that the money going to schools is recieved in the classroom and not swallowed up by the bueraucracy. Lastly, if the federal government puts money out for education, then maybe they should have some amount of say-so...atleast when the states are failing.



> President Bush and conservative Republicans have been trying to restrain lawsuit abuse by allowing class-action suits to be moved from state to federal courts. The 2002 election law imposed national standards on the states in such areas as registration and provisional balloting. A 2004 law established federal standards for state-issued driver's licenses and personal identification cards.


Wasn't this in regards to California issuing ILLEGAL ALIENS driver's licences? I recall something of the sort...



> President Bush's "Project Safe Neighborhoods" transfers the prosecution of gun crimes from states to the federal government. The administration is trying to persuade federal courts to block implementation of state initiatives on medical marijuana in California and assisted suicide in Oregon.


As far as marijuana, it is against federal law. A state cannot overturn federal law. Remember, Federalism  As far as assisted suicide, I do not believe a doctor should be forced to perform it if it goes against their beliefs. Also, don't doctors take an oath to preserve life?



> Perhaps most notoriously, President Bush and conservatives are pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in all 50 states. They talk about runaway judges and democratic decision-making, but their amendment would forbid the people of New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, California or any other state from deciding to allow same-sex marriage. Marriage law has always been a matter for the states. We should not impose one uniform marriage law on what conservatives used to call "the sovereign states."


The issue with this is simple. States have voted AGAINST it. Surprisingly, liberal-assed KALIFORNIA, has even voted against it. Yet, one San Franciscan mayor, Gavin Newsome, ordered the issuance of gay marriage licenses. In Massachusettes, something similar happened with judges...Pardon my ignorance Putting an amendment to the constitution is an extreme...but it would ensure the will of the people.



> Most recently, we have the specter of the Republican Congress seeking to override six Florida court decisions in the tragic case of Terri Schiavo, intruding the federal government into yet another place it doesn't belong. Asked on Fox News about the oddity of conservatives seeking to over-ride states' rights, Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes responded: "Please! States' rights? Look, this is a moral issue."


I agree. It was not cool doing what they tried to do. I was against pulling the feeding tube from her...only because it was a "verbal will." I do not think the next of kin should be a viable source in a "verbal will" when life and death are at stake.

Something not brought up was the republican controlled congress getting involved with Baseball and the steroid craze......makes me want uke:

Jeff Given


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Goose Huntin' Machine,
I enjoy reading your post. It's nice to see that a 22 year old from California actually has it figured out. I admire the fact that you live in the most liberal state in the nation and you want to get into politics as a conservative. It is very easy to be a conservative in the midwest. Keep up the good work, and continue to stand up for what is right. And remember the truth will set you free.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Goose Huntin Machine,
I have been swearing at the news since that whole steriod issue came up. Heres the real question? Does anyone care if professional athletes are on steriods. Its not like the consequences of steriods have not been explained to these people. Why do we need to protect stupid people from themselves. If Barry Bonds wants to do steriods thats fine. It seems pretty simple to me. Let them all do steriods but if they do they are not covered medically. Hold someone accountable for bad decisions.

In the contract of a professional athlete it should say. If you are caught doing illegal drugs, your contract becomes null and void. This should be the whole league's policy. In that way another team could not pick them up and make money. No questions asked and no more money. It would clean up so much crap in professional sports.

I am sick and tired of our government getting involved in crap that does nothing for the average citizen. What a huge waste of taxpayer money.

I do not care about professional athletes and steriod use. Tell them the consequences and let them pump as much crap into their bodies as they want. But like I said. Medical policies will not cover steriod users. Pretty simple I think.


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

Storm, I appreciate the kind words. It is really amazing I became so conservative. Kalifornia, college...my parents are both republican...but that is because that is how they grew up I think.

GanderGrinder,
I think we see eye to eye for the most part....
The repubs in congress are going to argue that since these players are role models to the youth there should be government regulations on them from using steroids....since MLB is not offering a sanction strict enough to deter steroid use.

I agree with them in part...but highly disagree with getting involved!

:******:

Jeff


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

GG wrote


> I am sick and tired of our government getting involved in crap that does nothing for the average citizen. What a huge waste of taxpayer money.


Me to, but if you want to know why congress is involved look here

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2001/1205/1290707.html

This is the real reason they think they need to be involved, congress is too busy foolin with this kind of stuff to do anything worthwile. I vote republican but Im sure getting sick of them


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Why do we need to protect stupid people from themselves. If Barry Bonds wants to do steriods thats fine.


It is my opinion that the health of Barry Bonds is not the issue or any other player for that matter. Once upon a time Baseball was as American as apply pie. Hero's to youths were born and made on the diamond. Records made and broken by men who valued team and fan loyalty. Today loyalty is to the dollar and fans are only tolerable as long as the dollars roll in. If we are going to allow this favorite American game to fade away then that is fine, but all records set or broken with steroid use should be stripped from the books.. we can at least do that much for those that used their natural skills for setting records. Baseball and all other sports with this type of activity must now be sold to our young people as nothing but a business and they must be discouraged from looking upon these players as something to emulate. Or, we could do something drastic like just simply restore honor back to a great sport and play ball.........just my opinion.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Gohon,
I was once the kid who looked on at baseball with awe and wonder. No longer. I refuse to go to a game. I have pretty much stopped paying to see all professional sports. I watch college instead.

Baseball is big business but the owners are too stupid to see how the old school style of baseball would be very profitable.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Gohon, who sais we have to always disagree! Good post!



> It is my opinion that the health of Barry Bonds is not the issue or any other player for that matter. Once upon a time Baseball was as American as apply pie. Hero's to youths were born and made on the diamond. Records made and broken by men who valued team and fan loyalty. Today loyalty is to the dollar and fans are only tolerable as long as the dollars roll in. If we are going to allow this favorite American game to fade away then that is fine, but all records set or broken with steroid use should be stripped from the books.. we can at least do that much for those that used their natural skills for setting records. Baseball and all other sports with this type of activity must now be sold to our young people as nothing but a business and they must be discouraged from looking upon these players as something to emulate. Or, we could do something drastic like just simply restore honor back to a great sport and play ball.........just my opinion.


North Dakota ... one of the few states without a major pro sports team, just another reason to live here.

TC


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> North Dakota ... one of the few states without a major pro sports team, just another reason to live here.


IF posting and hunting commercialism continues to accelerate at the rate it has the last few years, it will be soon be the only reason.


----------

