Relevance of the GOP

Wrong. I favor a return to the Federalism. So what has the GOP done to promote a return to Federalism?

 

You really don't understand the concept of allies in a common cause, do you?

 

I'm sure he does. The last few days have been a bitter pill to swallow as you watch people claim the SCOTUS decision as a "victory".

 

One must carefully employ the term 'Federalism'. Many ideologues consider 'Federalism' in the contemporary sense, equating such to the big government policies of Republicans and Democrats. 'Federalism' in the archaic sense is what you most likely seek.

 

All I see is him trying to make me one of the enemy. Not a good practice in an alliance.

 

I really don't think you need to be careful employing the word. Republicans wouldn't know "Federalism" if it slapped them upside the head.

 

Distortion of the archaic meaning is what necessitates punctilious application. The United States federalist of the eighteenth century is vastly different from the self-identified modern adherent.

 

And I'm saying if you were eye-to-eye with any given person and asked them what "Federalism" is they wouldn't have any definition for you. They would stutter and say, "Duh, somethin' to do with the gubbermint?

 

Most people would balk at the prospect. Eclectic purport is still apparent.

 

Obama reneging on getting rid of the Patriot Act was a broken promise, but it was a promise made by an ignorant candidate immersed in academic leftism who had zero national security experience. I've talked about it before, but I think his first national security briefing was probably the first time he got a glimpse of what the real world, instead of the ideological one he had inhabited, was like, and he probably just crapped his pants and has been too afraid of changing very much of Bush's national security policies. Like most leftists, he probably was unaware of how dangerous and chaotic the world could be absent US action.

Romney has already had executive experience and is well familiar with health policy. He's not going to be surprised, shocked, or crap his pants on day one. Do you have a reason to think he really wouldn't want to repeal Obamacare?

 

Because he implemented the exact same legislation in Massachusetts when he was governor?

 

From my view I see the R's and The D's as the enemy , both are totally against freedom , we all have been had!! Alex Jones was right lol

 

Yes. His record. People ought to stand on it. Before becoming governor he had campaign promises wherein he specifically said that he had no intentions towards a great many things that he later ended up doing. Also, before he knew that this was a hot button he was for it, then later he was "against" it. You have no idea what he will actually do just by what he says, only his actions.

As for the Patriot Act. That was a campaign promise and I don't believe it is about National Security and seeing the big picture. It follows the suit of government expands powers without returning them.

Name a time we've gotten anything repealed wherein rights were given back.

 

Werd.

 

You may have the same cause as me, which is freedom, but trying to centralize power is self defeating.

 

You assume that Obama had the intention of doing away with the Patriot Act but later changed his mind. To me it is the same thing as Romney saying he will overturn Obamacare. You say what you think you need to in order to galvanize your base.

I believe that neither of them really care. In fact, Obama singed a much more toxic peice of legislation in the NDAA. You don't even hear Romney mention it. Disgusting.

 

People in power never give up cool over-lord like powers. It is why all civilizations eventually fall.

 

I'm for decentralisation.

 

Actually, he did mention it in a debate. He said he wouldn't repeal it.

 

What does this mean? Does this mean giving states the right to seek their own policies, like with health care rather than a one size fits all approach we see socialist countries embrace?

 

I like that too, yes. I've written extensively on the subject.

 

Excellent. That way you could live in Massachussets and have state coverage and someone in Texas chould choose to live without it. That way everyone is happy.

 

Should states have a federal option that allows them to spread the cost over a larger population?

 

Or...all the states could pass it and everyone could have affordable coverage.

 

"Obvious Supremacy of the Democrat Party??? LOL!!! That's rich, you do realize that the Republicans won more seats in the midterm elections than at any time since 1946 right? They picked up 63 seats in the House. They only needed 40 to give them back the majority. Additionally Republicans picked up a total of 724 seats in all the State run legislature races. That's more than at any time since 1966, and they now hold a total of 53% of all legislative seats around the country. The only place they haven't been able to get ahead is in the Senate, but since they have staggered 6 year cycles, it's not exactly surprising. Some of the seats that were closed to elections in 2010, will be open in 2012 and the rest in 2014 and you can bet that the Republicans will definitely be picking up a few seats, at least in 2012. Depending on how well Romney does, we might even pick up a few more in 2014!