Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to NationStates - Canada. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
McCain's running mate
Topic Started: Aug 29 2008, 10:48 AM (924 Views)
Saskatchewan Warriers
Member Avatar
Saskatchewan Warriors
Do you get the feeling Palin is still running for something?

I just loved the interview they did while butchering turkeys in the background! :P
___
Saskatchewan.... Flat - It's so flat!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jDELIGHT
Member Avatar
Fun is the only noise you should hear
Lots of place for a person like her.

A 21-Skwerl Salute for the Dizzy Twirling Hippy Chick!

"Your only true land based hope are aerodynamically correct goats." JT
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kyleslavia
Member Avatar
Stanley Cup Champ
Saskatchewan Warriers,Nov 27 2008
04:36 AM
I just loved the interview they did while butchering turkeys in the background! :P

It sure was an interesting occurrence :rolleyes:

I felt bad for the turkey though... :(
Come and visit Kylesburg City, please clicky!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
North Star State
Member Avatar
Enforcer
Palin is the best looking conservative ever.....considering the other conservatives are old douche bags, but she was also the dumbest conservative ever......thanks for losing McCain the election.....

I'm only joking :rolleyes:
< Insert something original and querky here >
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cowland5
Member Avatar
Baron de Pompous
That's the only thing I would thank her for...
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Niongor
Member Avatar
Giver of the *Hi-5*
Regardless of what people say, I like McCain. Have done since he came to my attention four years ago. I truly admire him.

I have nothing against Obama and personally I really like the guy. Some of his policies worry me slightly but I'll keep stum until he's had a chance. I'm excited to see what he'll do and I sincerely hope he wipes out my doubts about him.
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jahka
Rookie
Niongor,Oct 14 2008
12:45 PM
Kyleslavia,Oct 13 2008
01:20 PM
Niongor,Oct 13 2008
07:58 AM
I still think the United States' next President won't have the popular vote.  I think whoever wins is going to do it by the electoral college vote.

I honestly hope that doesn't happen again.

I think it's a rip! The electoral college was only created to that George Washington was guaranteed to be elected President. Well, it was also created because at that time a popular vote throughout the United States would have been almost impossible...but still!

I think there's an irony to the fact that America preaches about democracy, yet its own leader, and by common consensus, leader of the free world, isn't even elected by the people! :unsure: The electoral college isn't a bad thing, but it can literally rob people (Al Gore) of an election victory.

The Electoral College works quite well with the two-party system(third partys have NO chance with the electoral college)

People seem to forgot that the US is a federation of states. Each with it's own powers. Sadly the power has been slowly drifting to the Federal Government. If we take away the Electoral College than the states will have no power. <_<
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jDELIGHT
Member Avatar
Fun is the only noise you should hear
Not true. There are still plenty of areas in economics (tax incentives for businesses for example), social structure (the new ban on gay marriage in CA) and definitely in tourism/development (gambling, state parks administration, water rights). States can set their clocks the way they want - AZ has no Daylight Savings Time.

There are other considerations besides the right to do things. States can set their speed limits to whatever they want, but if they don't go by the federal standards, they don't get federal funding. States can set up their education systems the way they want, but they have to play by the fed rules if they want full funding. They have the choice to do so or not.

I do not see how states' rights are advanced at all by the EC. There is no advantage in an era of electronics (pun intended).

A 21-Skwerl Salute for the Dizzy Twirling Hippy Chick!

"Your only true land based hope are aerodynamically correct goats." JT
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ess
Member Avatar
twirling hippy chick
Niongor,Dec 1 2008
06:47 AM

I have nothing against Obama and personally I really like the guy. Some of his policies worry me slightly but I'll keep stum until he's had a chance. I'm excited to see what he'll do and I sincerely hope he wipes out my doubts about him.

I think he is a smart man surrounding himself with smart people who will all do what is right for the country, not just themselves.
Posted Image
WOW Canada is a Wonderland of enchantments~Bobert
Ess is the Chuck Norris of NS Canada, so anything's possible.~Redundancies
The hippy chick is Canada's coolest! ~Fiddy
HappinEss ~Matilda
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jahka
Rookie
jDELIGHT,Dec 8 2008
07:28 AM
Not true. There are still plenty of areas in economics (tax incentives for businesses for example), social structure (the new ban on gay marriage in CA) and definitely in tourism/development (gambling, state parks administration, water rights). States can set their clocks the way they want - AZ has no Daylight Savings Time.

There are other considerations besides the right to do things. States can set their speed limits to whatever they want, but if they don't go by the federal standards, they don't get federal funding. States can set up their education systems the way they want, but they have to play by the fed rules if they want full funding. They have the choice to do so or not.

I do not see how states' rights are advanced at all by the EC. There is no advantage in an era of electronics (pun intended).

I'm afraid I disagree with you. :no:

The State right's you mentioned are hardly important. i mean things like, the Federal Department of Education. And the Federal income tax. All things the constitution says belongs to the state.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jDELIGHT
Member Avatar
Fun is the only noise you should hear
I agree that states' rights are not what they once were - for better and for worse. but they are not gone, just not used.

Before we had pervasive communication and ease of long distance travel, broad states' rights were more expedient way to run a republic. Over our fairly short history, we have developed the means to pool resources. That's just the way a system like ours develops over time. States still have the choices to take advantage of common funds and programs. And many programs run more efficiently and effectively when they are centralized (highways, military, etc.)

I am not saying that states should lie down and go federal, but there are distinct advantages for all of us as citizens when there are certain national standards. We as a country should rightfully stand as one to decry inhumane practices such as torture and censorship. The Bill of Rights and the amendments to the Constitution should be upheld across all states. And, the federal government should be held accountable for violations of those amendments by the states.

That's Congress' job, and they do not do it.

So, who is forcing them to turn a blind eye? Who is pushing states to depend on federal funding? Is it the federal government? It is certainly not the people in the individual states. In both cases, it is the corporations.

If the feds appear to be taking away states' rights, I'd look behind the curtain to see who is taking away all of our rights on every level. Politicians are not getting rich off their government paychecks, my friend.

Here's your "corporate bordello" FTW.



(btw - states still get their tax money on top of the feds, so it's not like they can't and don't. states still set their own education policies - that is one example of having the choice, but in order to get fed funding, the choice is to go with the fed standards)

A 21-Skwerl Salute for the Dizzy Twirling Hippy Chick!

"Your only true land based hope are aerodynamically correct goats." JT
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jahka
Rookie
jDELIGHT,Dec 9 2008
12:00 AM
I agree that states' rights are not what they once were - for better and for worse. but they are not gone, just not used.

Before we had pervasive communication and ease of long distance travel, broad states' rights were more expedient way to run a republic. Over our fairly short history, we have developed the means to pool resources. That's just the way a system like ours develops over time. States still have the choices to take advantage of common funds and programs. And many programs run more efficiently and effectively when they are centralized (highways, military, etc.)

I am not saying that states should lie down and go federal, but there are distinct advantages for all of us as citizens when there are certain national standards. We as a country should rightfully stand as one to decry inhumane practices such as torture and censorship. The Bill of Rights and the amendments to the Constitution should be upheld across all states. And, the federal government should be held accountable for violations of those amendments by the states.

That's Congress' job, and they do not do it.

So, who is forcing them to turn a blind eye? Who is pushing states to depend on federal funding? Is it the federal government? It is certainly not the people in the individual states. In both cases, it is the corporations.

If the feds appear to be taking away states' rights, I'd look behind the curtain to see who is taking away all of our rights on every level. Politicians are not getting rich off their government paychecks, my friend.

Here's your "corporate bordello" FTW.



(btw - states still get their tax money on top of the feds, so it's not like they can't and don't. states still set their own education policies - that is one example of having the choice, but in order to get fed funding, the choice is to go with the fed standards)

Yes :yes:


The more power we take out of the politicians, the less chance they have to screw us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Niongor
Member Avatar
Giver of the *Hi-5*
In Australia, a federation just like the US, the constitution outlines a strong federal government with weaker state governments. The US is the reverse, with the constitution stating any power not expressly defined as federal belonging to the individual states.

Yet, how is it, that in practice, it seems the other way round? The US states seem easily bullied into submitting to federal will, whereas in Australia, individual states (especially my home state) seem very willing to tell the federal government to back off and keep their hands off the rope. Generally speaking, the federal government of Australia seems acutely aware of individual states' wants, but in the US it's like your federal government genuinely doens't give a sh*t.

Maybe I'm mis-reading it, but that's just how it seems.
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jDELIGHT
Member Avatar
Fun is the only noise you should hear
I don't know about Australian states' rights, but my guess is that it is our extreme litigation process that makes it topsy turvy for us. Just like the freedom of speech - we have it explicit in our Constitution, and Oz does not. I know you have better freedoms of speech. There is not always the threat of lawsuit hanging over people's heads.

The Western U.S. is getting worse, but it still has a "live and let live" culture that i appreciate.

A 21-Skwerl Salute for the Dizzy Twirling Hippy Chick!

"Your only true land based hope are aerodynamically correct goats." JT
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Niongor
Member Avatar
Giver of the *Hi-5*
jDELIGHT,Dec 10 2008
03:17 AM
I don't know about Australian states' rights, but my guess is that it is our extreme litigation process that makes it topsy turvy for us. Just like the freedom of speech - we have it explicit in our Constitution, and Oz does not. I know you have better freedoms of speech. There is not always the threat of lawsuit hanging over people's heads.

The Western U.S. is getting worse, but it still has a "live and let live" culture that i appreciate.

True, the Australian constitution makes no reference to "freedom of speech", although I believe it does guarantee freedom of religion.

However in Australia, freedom of speech is thought more of a "natural right". Basically, under Australian common law, no man, organisation or government can "grant" you (via a constitution or bill of rights) that which is inherently yours. This is how freedom of speech works in England and Wales too.

The only problem I have with the federal vs. state disputes in Australia is that the state is constitutionally required to back down to the will of the federal government.

One thing that is allowed in Australia and not allowed in the US: secession. Western Australia being a case-in-point of that.
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« Previous Topic · Real Life Politics and Current Events · Next Topic »
Add Reply