Georgia Becomes First State in History to Pass the Convention of States Application

page: 6
85
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Well now the state government is proposing the testing of welfare recipients for drugs before they can get benefits, but while I agree with this you know what happen in Florida when this same bill was proposed.




posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   

marg6043
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Well now the state government is proposing the testing of welfare recipients for drugs before they can get benefits, but while I agree with this you know what happen in Florida when this same bill was proposed.



in my opinion, Florida has been a political basket case for some time. not much shocks me anymore.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

mrsdudara
reply to post by Gryphon66
 



What is it exactly that you believe is the best option? I'm confused. You don't think we should go back to the system that worked where the states had more rights including rights to the money earned in the state? You seem to dislike every option we have. So what is it that you have in your head that would work?


I think we're both confused; honestly, because you continue to confuse me. You're speaking in such wild generalities!

What system are you talking about "where the states had more rights including rights to the money earned in the state"?

Why do you think "I dislike every option we have"? I am against the dissolution of the United States of America; that's treason.

What exactly is YOUR suggestion? Are you suggesting that we dissolve the Union? Be specific.

The mind boggles.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

marg6043
reply to post by mrsdudara
 


I may be incorrect but I think he is defending the reasons why big government is necessary. In other words he is defending the Federal government.

But like I say, I could be wrong in my opinion.



He does seem to be for the Federal Govt. and the constitution. Which is why I don't understand why he is against this. This is not a dissolution of the U.S. its saying it needs to be fixed via a process outlined in the papers he frequently quotes. The United States per the papers he quotes is/was a union of self run states.

BTW Griffon66 the example I gave with the different states coming together was to say there are 50 states they can unite for a common cause and be perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. Being the history buff you attempt to make yourself out to be you know this is not a foreign concept.

Just seems from all your posts, you just like to disagree with people. That's all.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

mrsdudara

marg6043
reply to post by mrsdudara
 


I may be incorrect but I think he is defending the reasons why big government is necessary. In other words he is defending the Federal government.

But like I say, I could be wrong in my opinion.



He does seem to be for the Federal Govt. and the constitution. Which is why I don't understand why he is against this. This is not a dissolution of the U.S. its saying it needs to be fixed via a process outlined in the papers he frequently quotes. The United States per the papers he quotes is/was a union of self run states.

BTW Griffon66 the example I gave with the different states coming together was to say there are 50 states they can unite for a common cause and be perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. Being the history buff you attempt to make yourself out to be you know this is not a foreign concept.

Just seems from all your posts, you just like to disagree with people. That's all.


You've read ALL my posts then? Wow, a fan!


I'm not sure how you conceive of what we're doing here. It's a discussion board. We discuss things. It's not just a matter of throwing up your opinion about something and having that go unremarked upon. I'm not sure why you're threatened by my asking you for clarification of your ideas. I'm not sure why you have to jump to a snide tone about my "making myself out to be a history buff" ... but for the sake of argument, I have a college degree in history, I'm interested in history, I've done some reading in the primary documents of history, like for example, the Federalist Papers, which you may or may not know were the arguments made for the creation of the US as we know it under our Constitution by several important fellows, one of which is known as "the father of the Constitution" James Madison.

But, I'm sure that wherever you get your ideas from is a better source than that, right? Silly historical facts.

With all due respect, if you don't like discussion, or having your ideas challenged, maybe you're in the wrong place?

Your vague and general comments really don't say anything. Sure, States can cooperate ... but would they? I gave a readily available and specific example of how three States can't agree about how to use a river that runs by ...

What are you arguing? What do you think I'm arguing? Let's get on the same page. (EDIT)
edit on 13Wed, 12 Mar 2014 13:11:10 -050014p012014366 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mrsdudara
 


We had that setup before. It was called the articles of confederation. Then we adopted the constitution. The civil war was the nail in the coffin for those articles.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Gryphon66
With all due respect, if you don't like discussion, or having your ideas challenged, maybe you're in the wrong place?



Well due to mrsdudara long standing membership in these boards I will say that she is in deed in the right place.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Self deleted.
edit on 15Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:19:21 -050014p032014366 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Cypress
reply to post by mrsdudara
 


We had that setup before. It was called the articles of confederation. Then we adopted the constitution. The civil war was the nail in the coffin for those articles.


That's exactly what I'm trying to nail down here, Cypress. What time in American history are these folks referring to? Or are we in the imaginary country that's the same today as it was in the 1790s.

All I'm seeing here is a very general rehashing of the typical and fallacious Tea Party rhetoric; I was hoping for something more.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


I agree, I understand the need for a centralized government..removing it will deteriorate the way of life for Americans faster than anything.

More (or new) checks and balances? I don't know that a solid answer exists. To create an alternate world and envision the fed crippling is one thing and highly improbable. But changing the structure and makeup of said government and balancing it out more could work.

The saddest part is that corruption or not, no one seems to have any idea on how to resolve issues ( at any level) and there are so many Americans that just don't seem to care one way or the other.(again at any level-wanting to fix it to suit a persons own interest is no fix at all) You don't want an Aristocratic or Oligarchic ruling class but there seem to be no answers. We seriously seem to be at about the same place on solving the issue of our own governance as we are of 100% proving or disproving life outside of earth. It is really depressing but you speak 100% truth. You cannot suddenly remove all of the legs from a table and expect it to stand. Reformation perhaps more than anything but then again that will lead to corruption.

The answer seems to lie in what my father always told me (and still does from time to time)

It is what it is. You're more likely to go crazy trying to figure out what is wrong or what it is than you are to solve the problem.
Doesn't mean not to think on it, but some of these problems our world (USA) faces won't be solved in our lifetimes (I'm 26) or perhaps ever. So we just deal and vote and do the best we can hoping that somewhere morality kicks in for those who can pull the strings and things change.

The answer to what to do is probably best summed up in saying there is no answer. Only alternatives..and no way of proving that the alternative won't turn out worse.


Cheers.
edit on 12-3-2014 by WhoWhatWhenWhere2420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by WhoWhatWhenWhere2420
 


Your post is excellently written if I may say so.

The United States is a unique political creature and always has been. It's not like these questions are new questions.

My position would be that there's not anything wrong with our governmental system IN GENERAL (i.e. the Constitution, the Three Branches of Government, etc.) and that its about as good a compromise between distributed and centralized powers as we're going to find. Our problem is the nest of vipers we've brought to power.

If there have been abuses of executive power (and I'd be the first to agree that there HAVE been, but they sure as heck didn't start in 2008) or legislative powers then we need to use the American system to remedy that problem ... not issue traitorous calls for the destruction of the Union.

One of the most important things is impose reasonable term limits on Congress. Twelve years total is all anyone serves. That's two Senate terms and six House terms. Yes, that's arbitrary, but let's start somewhere. Let's remove the lucrative nature of the offices. Let's squeeze the corporations and special interests out of the People's House (and Senate) as much as possible.

We need to increase the accountability of Congress and the Executive directly to the People.

Let's consider ways in which we could establish a reliable National Referendum process.

Let's consider ways in which we could fully establish a secure "one citizen one vote" system at the national level that insures that everyone has their rightful voice but assures that they only speak once.

Let's restructure the electoral process to allow for the possibility of some better choice than "the lesser of two evils" i.e. get rid of the "Two Party" deadlock on the electoral process.

Let's make lobbying a capital crime, pun intended.





edit on 18Wed, 12 Mar 2014 18:35:01 -050014p062014366 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 18Wed, 12 Mar 2014 18:43:52 -050014p062014366 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Gryphon66
Self deleted.
edit on 15Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:19:21 -050014p032014366 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)


Nooooo

No self deletion!!

Heya Gryph!



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by WhoWhatWhenWhere2420
 


I agree with much of your post, but I do believe that at some point in time we will tire of the status quo regarding our federal govt (as well as various state govts which vary in efficient functionality).

I do not (cannot) believe that there is no answer. This is supposed to be govt by the people, for the people etc and until WE accept our responsibility and take back control of the govt it will continue to be business as usual in DC.

I also believe that the constitution is an amazing document. The problem is that we have begun to buy into the "living document" philosophy to a point that our leaders are able to interpret it to mean whatever they want it to mean. I advocate a strict interpretation and if that does not suit the times then we use a tool provided for by the constitution and amend it accordingly.

I think that the current situation where the fed collects our taxes and then returns some to the states is not only inefficient (how many people are we paying to collect and then send our money back to us?) but is also a form of extortion. "Follow this policy and we will send you money for X". Common practice....

I am not for gutting the federal govt of it's authority, but rather limiting it per the constitution. Take our vaunted Education department: It has done more for illiteracy in the US than virtually any other factor. The "no child left behind" has turned into a "no child gets ahead" education. Schools that suck the worst and are the worst at educating our children are rewarded with more money. There is no logic to that. Unless you believe all problems are solved by throwing money at them, in which case I would like to point out the failures of the last 60 years (during my lifetime). There is no provision for the Federal mandates in the constitution regarding standardizing education and the result has been to stifle those areas, those states who excelled at it at one time. This is an example of my thoughts regarding what our Federal govt's responsibilities should be vs what they are.

The problem with over standardization is that you wind up with, at best, standardized mediocrity.

The fed should be regulating interstate and international trade..no doubt. Regulating education? The fed should be responsible for the defense of the country. Responsible for being my nanny?




edit on 13-3-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
85
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join