Originally posted by DarkKnight76
I didn't really feel like searching, but all of this talk is strongly reminiscent of the 2004 and 08 election when every one said Bush was going to
suspend the election. Something I have figured out about the politics on this site, maybe I should have realized it earlier, doesn't matter which
party is in power, they are the enemy.
A question, can someone please explain to me the diference between the federal gov telling me to do something and my state gov telling me to do
something? Why are so many of you ok with letting the state tell you how to live, but then suddenly think the world is going to end when the federal
government tells you to do something? I just want to know what the big difference is, because as far as I can tell, I voted for both my state and
federal reps, so what's the difference between being led by Peter or Paul? I can tell you there is none! You all b!?&h about the fed doing this and
the fed doing that, and yell "put the power back in the hands of the states", then when the states do get the power back, they pretty much do what
the fed was going to do anyway. I just can't believe none of you "states rights" people have even thought of this yet.
edit on 4-5-2012 by
DarkKnight76 because: (no reason given)
It's not so much a difference in policies or WHO it is, rather the Federal Government is an entity that is unneeded and farther removed from us,
figuratively and literally, than our representatives in our state capitals. They add unneeded red tape to simple processes like maintaining our
interstate system. The whole concept
of this country being run by THIS TYPE of Government is outdated at best, and redundant at it's worst.
Remember, this Government was formed when there maybe
13 "colonies". Back then they were considered United. United against England. Hence
the term "United States of America". They may have added addendum's and amendment's to the original constitution to try to keep pace with the
times, but those additions are still based on an antiquated system. Redundant.
The system in Washington is like that 100 year old boss who's still running the company because he doesn't know what else to do. You kinda feel
sorry for the guy, but you don't want to be rude either. He does deserve a certain amount of respect......he did found the company after
all.......but it really is his time to go.
Look at this way. I used to work for a company based out of St.Louis. Made the steel and other parts that go into making stores like Ross, Target and
Wal-Mart. Building a store? You called us. They also had contracts with some of the major auto manufacturers. Big operation with a lot of national
logistics going on. The home office in St. Louis founded the company. That's where it started and over time it grew and branched out into different
states. Each DC and manufacturing plant they have, be it California or New York, takes care of their own business. They make and then distribute the
product to stores in their area. The home office in St. Louis doesn't do that for them. The individual plants do it for themselves because they know
the area, region, and needs of those local customers better than St. Louis does. It's not that St.Louis doesn't know what they're doing, they're
just not needed at that level anymore.The only reason they're "needed" is to keep it all on a corporate level for the sake of their shareholders on
Wall Street. To make it all look good, professional and cohesive. For all practical purposes however, the company as a whole doesn't NEED corporate
anymore. They can take care of their own. They do everyday.
Same with this country. We don't NEED Washington DC, they're just there to make the whole operation look good, professional and cohesive.
We don't need a President, we need 52 regional, I'm sorry, state, managers. They can talk amongst themselves and keep things cohesive at that level.
They don't need an entirely separate entity to do it for them.