Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[SlaveNoMore]

Some lefties seem to be running with my federalism schpiel:

• Did we misunderestimate him again?
  
  One of the classic debates between liberals and conservatives is over the size and influence of the federal government. Conservatives, by and large, agitate for the states to retain most of the power, while liberals tend towards a more powerful central government.
  
  President Bush has, during his first term, spent like a sailor, with "No Child Left Behind" and the Prescription drug benefit he has added a massive new entitlements (and costs) from the national level, and he has advocated using the power of the federal government to deny gay couples any rights, even those that may be afforded by the legislature of a particular state. Not exactly what you'd expect from a so-called conservative president.
  
  His "Faith Based Initiative", his denial of federal funding for stem cell research, and the luddite disposition of his council on bio-ethics betray a theocratic influence on his spending habits (spending of our money, I might add) that likely makes a lot of people very uncomfortable (myself included).
  
  Many of these things appear to be deliberate, well placed, and repeated thumbs-to-the-eyes of liberals. And many liberals are becoming unhinged. Given the difficulties inherent in moving to Canada (where the liberals could "benefit" from the kind of nationalized health care system and high taxation that they want so much), what's a fellow to do?
  
  This post on Instapundit showing a picture of a poster that reads "Can we Secede Already?" pretty much sums up the mood in many parts of the country, and gives me an idea about what is to be done.
  
  This, My Little Fuckers, is the danger of Big Government. Being able to micromanage the entire nation from the national level may be all well and good when Your Guy is in power, but what happens when the other guy gets a shot at pulling the levers?
  
  Given that you have four more years of Bush, at least two more years without a shot at controlling either half of congress, and no clear presidential outlook 2008, isn't it about time to get on the small government bandwagon?
  
  Outflank the republicans to the right. Insist on Federalist judicial appointees with no social agenda, shout from the rooftops that the Federal Government has gotten too big, and insist on returning power to The States, where the politicians are (being more local) more accountable and more responsive to the people.
  
  If you care at all about the theoconservative social agenda becoming national law, if you care about advancing your own social agenda anywhere, if you'd like to sweep the small-l libertarian faction out from under the republicans, now is your chance.
  
  While you're at it, you'll manage to stop having to pay for bridges to nowhere in Alaska, a frickin' rain forest in Iowa, and any other pork barrel projects that come humming down the pike.
  
  There are many good arguments in favor of federalism, but this, I believe, is one that liberals can embrace.
  
  Since the republicans seem to have abandoned the small government ideal, this is the perfect chance to do something, and possibly pick up a new constituency in the bargain. But then again, perhaps that's what Bush had planned all along...

[sgtclub]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137691,00.html

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137691,00.html

You see, all he needed was a few hurricanes to hit to help construction surge and let him buy vot - er, pump money, into Florida.

Too bad unemployment increased.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You see, all he needed was a few hurricanes to hit to help construction surge and let him buy vot - er, pump money, into Florida.

Too bad unemployment increased.

Nice spin:

• Still, the unemployment rate (search) edged up to 5.5 percent from 5.4 percent in September, but that was because more people joined the search for employment, a potentially hopeful sign.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Some lefties seem to be running with my federalism schpiel:

Embracing federalism simply because one's preferred side lost is a stupid rationale.

And I still don't understand your suggestion for federalism as a way to justify criminalizing gay sex.

I understand that being out of the mainstream with one's own party on social issues is disconcerting (trust me, I feel it often myself) but using federalism to try and rationalize that dissonance simply doesn't work.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Walter Dellinger makes a few good points:

• Before Democrats rush to adopt radically new policies and positions, we need to remember that last Tuesday was the first time in 16 years that the Republicans got as many votes as the Democrats in a national Presidential election. And this time the Republicans may have prevailed only because election errors put Bush in office in 2000, sitting there for the country to rally around after 9/11—as they would have any president. Simply put, if one night in 2000, before going home, Palm Beach election official Teresa LaPore had just spent five more minutes at the office rechecking her (mis)design of the butterfly ballot, Gore would have won the presidency undisputed on Election Night 2000 and, it is plausible to think, would have been re-elected last Tuesday. Talk about the butterfly effect!
  
  So, remember that we haven't, in fact, done so badly in recent presidential elections. But there seems to be a flaw in how our governing system is working that is turning narrow victories into unearned dominance. By (at best) narrowly prevailing in two elections in which the nation was split down the middle, one party, with the support of barely half the electorate, is in position to control everything—House, Senate, Presidency, Supreme Court and lower courts appointments, everything.
  
  The purpose of separation of powers is not being fulfilled. The branches were designed as a check on each other. But the institutional divisions between legislative bodies and the executive, or between the House and Senate, are no longer salient. The ideological purification of our parties—a relatively new and unfortunate development—may have created an identity of partisan interest so strong that separate branches, when controlled by the same party, provide no check at all. Due in part to greatly enhanced partisanship, loyalty to the Senate or House as an institution is being replaced for legislators of the president's party with loyalty to the president. The Framers thought they had produced a system that would insure that a faction supported by a bare 51 percent of the people could not make the other party its dog. It's not working.

Second-to-last sentence there made me laugh.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Hi! Not discouraged. Just realizing that I maybe spoke too soon with the whole "Say Hello maintains civility" thing when I came across the whole "substanceless bimbo" thing. I did not want to come off as a clueless rube prone to deception. Anyhoo, good luck with the civility pledge. I would suggest working on not being so easily provoked, but I know how that goes on anonymous chat boards. But good luck anyway!

Thanks for the good luck wishes Flower!! Good luck to you too. I'm gonna work on that thing about not being easily provoked. Speaking of which, you seem like the type with a lot of answers and a deep reservoir of life experience. Do you know any hypnotists in the Chicago or DC area that could help me quit smoking? I better quit, or I might not even outlive Sebby, and that's sceery!!!!

And hey, I caught your Paul Westerberg reference today (or was that someone else from Minnesota?). Let's see if you remember this golden oldie!!!
Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog;
aaaaaaahhhhh Fuck School, Fuck School, Fuck My School;
Fuck School Fuck School, Fuck My Schoool.

Ahh memories. Anywhey, its been great!! Wow, talkin to, like, a legend here!! This is great!!!

Hello!!

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Embracing federalism simply because one's preferred side lost is a stupid rationale.

And I still don't understand your suggestion for federalism as a way to justify criminalizing gay sex.

I understand that being out of the mainstream with one's own party on social issues is disconcerting (trust me, I feel it often myself) but using federalism to try and rationalize that dissonance simply doesn't work.

Agreed that its not a good idea as an immediate basis. That said, what's wrong with having 50 little societies here? Ya know, 220 years ago, Virginia didn't even know California. Why would they have wanted to be married?

Hello

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Embracing federalism simply because one's preferred side lost is a stupid rationale.

Especially for those of us who don't want to move.

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
And I still don't understand your suggestion for federalism as a way to justify criminalizing gay sex.

I am offering it merely as a continuing topic for discussion, as it seems to be one of the few Constitutional means for assuring that - in simple terms - we get what we want and they get what they want.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And I would suggest that the person attempting to improve his or her situtation should get more than the person that is not.

I couldn't disagree with that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I am offering it merely as a continuing topic for discussion, as it seems to be one of the few Constitutional means for assuring that - in simple terms - we get what we want and they get what they want.

You're forgetting that we don't look like this:



We look like this:



One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
Especially for those of us who don't want to move.

You did save the "Displaced Texan" login, right?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Bet that line didn't work when you tried it on Mrs. Wonk.

No, but it worked on Mrs. Finch.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What you and Wonk and Slave are saying sounds like an EP argument, but the Supreme Court's decision does not.

I wasn't discussing the Lawrence case. I was responding to Club's statment. It was one of those tangent things.